"Stop the threat" vs "Feared for life"

[brianko]

I was reading an article about a Florida assistant attorney general who police say "feared for the lives of his wife and children" and shot an intruder. This got me thinking about the words you're supposed to use if you find yourself in a position of having to make a statement to police after defending yourself.

I clearly recall from my original CHL cert and my first renewal (and my notes confirm this) that the instructors both urged us to use the words "stop the threat" when describing your actions to police. During my second renewal, I don't recall those words being used at all...instead, the instructor used the phrases "feared for my life" and "feared for the lives of my family."

Has there been a change in the instructor CHL training that has caused this shift in terminology? Is this a change that has come about due to Texas castle doctrine? Are both phrases considered equivalent in the eyes of the law? What are most CHL instructors currently recommending?

[longtooth]

No sir. You shoot to stop the threat.
That threat may be great enough that you are in fear of your life but you shoot to stop the threat. When he quits doing what ever it is that justifies your use of deadly force then you stop shooting.

[boomerang]

I think the difference is perspective. One is task oriented and the other is about internal motivation. They're not contradictory. Someone can shoot a criminal to "stop the threat" because he "feared for the lives of his wife and children."

Compare that to someone who shoots to "stop the threat" because he didn't like the way someone looked at him, or someone who shoots to kill an intruder because he "feared for the lives of his wife and children" and puts three more rounds into the unconscious body because he was still afraid.

[seamusTX]

Here is a discussion of this topic that took place exactly one year ago. It involves some insightful people who no longer participate in the forum.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... f=7&t=9680

- Jim

[KD5NRH]

I was reading an article about a Florida assistant attorney general who police say "feared for the lives of his wife and children" and shot an intruder. This got me thinking about the words you're supposed to use if you find yourself in a position of having to make a statement to police after defending yourself.

"I fired so that I would have time to contact my attorney before taking any further action."

[carlson1]

No sir. You shoot to stop the threat.
That threat may be great enough that you are in fear of your life but you shoot to stop the threat. When he quits doing what ever it is that justifies your use of deadly force then you stop shooting.

That Cannot Be Said Enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

[Jesse1911]

[longtooth]

No sir. You shoot to stop the threat.
That threat may be great enough that you are in fear of your life but you shoot to stop the threat. When he quits doing what ever it is that justifies your use of deadly force then you stop shooting.

That Cannot Be Said Enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

And that from a long time DPS officer.

[DoubleActionCHL]

No sir. You shoot to stop the threat.
That threat may be great enough that you are in fear of your life but you shoot to stop the threat. When he quits doing what ever it is that justifies your use of deadly force then you stop shooting.

Exactly! Your action or response is "shoot to stop the threat". It's an inescapable fact that when you shoot an attacker possibly multiple times with a handgun, he'll likely die. However, you must be able to articulate an imminent and reasonable fear for your life. Many factors go into supporting this 'fear'.

For example: ("He" is the attacker.)
He said he was going to kill me.
There were two of them.
He clearly had a knife (pipe, gun, etc.)
He was much larger than me.
He refused to show me his hands.
He was beating the crap out of me AND, if I didn't stop him, I was afraid he'd kill me.

Any or all of these factors might go into supporting your belief that you had an imminent and reasonable fear for your life (or that of a third party).

[Liko81]

Two sides of the same coin. You are justified in pulling the trigger because you were in fear for your life (it's not a requirement, but other justifications get a little hairier). Once you are justified in pulling the trigger, you pull that trigger as many times as is necessary to stop the threat. If you're confronting an angry ex-boyfriend (your own or your g/f's) it might just take one. If it's a coked-up home invader it might take every bullet in your magazine. Either way, when Sparky turns tail or drops to the ground, thus stopping his advance, you have stopped the threat.

[txflyer]

Either way, when Sparky turns tail or drops to the ground, thus stopping his advance, you have stopped the threat.

Not true. Sparky can still shoot while lying on the ground. Sparky can turn tail and point his gun at someone else. Point is, each situation is different and there are no hard and fast rules as to when you have succeeded in removing the threat. You must keep thinking even after pulling the trigger. I know "easier said than done", but keep thinking.

[USMC-COL]

Well said above by several. The bottom line of the equation is the THREAT. It may be a matter of perspective, mentality, or training, but shooting because you were in "fear for your life, the lives of your loved ones, or the lives of other innocents" may cause some people to stop addressing the threat too early, and start tending to loved ones. I believe you should be focused on the threat and ensuring you neutralize the threat before you address other concerns. Others in the vicinity may be able to address other concerns - stop the bleeding of injured persons, etc. I will respond until I stop/neutralize the threat.

[bdickens]

"Stop the threat." "Feared for life."

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[RossA]

BOTH are necessary! It's just a question of getting them in the right order.
1. You must have a reasonable fear BEFORE being justified in using deadly force. No reasonable fear, no justification for deadly force. So "feared for life" is a necessity.
2. AFTER you perceive the reasonable fear, THEN you act to "stop the threat."

[Xander]

BOTH are necessary! It's just a question of getting them in the right order.
1. You must have a reasonable fear BEFORE being justified in using deadly force. No reasonable fear, no justification for deadly force. So "feared for life" is a necessity.

Not to re-hash the thread Jim linked to, but where is that in the Penal Code? Nowhere in § 9.32 (Deadly force in defense of person) or § 9.42 (Deadly force in defense of property) does it mention either "reasonable fear" or "feared for life" as either a justification or even a consideration.

Again, I'm not going to re-hash last year's thread, but it's worth reading.