TexasCHLforum.com

rob777 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 7:40 am then there's this...

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.

Thanks for that. That's exactly what I was looking for.

My mentality has always been, if the bad guy runs off, don't pursue and immediately call the police. I think most, if not all, LEO's would appreciate this and write a favorable report. I guess the latest example (and comical one) would be the story out of Midlothian.

"Was it justified in the first place"? That argument could get someone in big trouble even if they are trying to do the right thing. Conversely, a dead man tells no tales.

bbhack wrote: ↑Fri Nov 30, 2018 1:57 am The answer is no. But you answered it yourself. Texas law does not use the word "brandish", thankfully, because it's a ridiculous word.

Thank you.

I apologize if this is in the wrong location. I'm sure this question has been asked before. I am looking for legal cases.

My question is very simple. If you draw on a situation that would be 100% legal to shoot, but don't pull the trigger, is there a negative impact on not pulling said trigger?

I'm talking from a de-escalation standpoint. The scenario being a life or death situation or serious bodily harm. If an individual backs down, I'm not shooting. Plain and simple. I have a military combat history and never fired at an anyone that didn't deserve it. Even after being cleared hot to do so in one instance. An individual I served with, came to me with thoughts of suicide because he thought he may have shot a non-combatant. It was a real eye opener for me and I'm glad I never had to live with that thought.

Not trying to sound like a patsy. I understand my surroundings. I am curious if there have been any legal cases that impacted the carrier negatively in a situation by not shooting that would have otherwise been a positive outcome?