TexasCHLforum.com

BCGlocker,

You stated: " If there is no immediate substantial risk of death or serious injury to you or another, deadly force should not be introduced."

Of course, but you strayed from my point after you stated: "You can't introduce a firearm (use of deadly force) into a fist fight."

Of course you can if, as I pointed out, "If you're a young, big adult and you start punching a much smaller, elderly man, do you consider that a fist fight?

If so, I guess the smaller man is just supposed to tolerate being punched out...and perhaps die."

That was my point within the parameters I introduced when it comes to a so-called "fist fight".

Many a person has died when punched with a fist.

BCGlocker wrote:The problem is "Proportionality". You can't introduce a firearm (use of deadly force) into a fist fight. Once again, we see CCWers fail to MYOB (Mind Your Own Business).

Assuming that you did not start the fight at what point in a fist fight can you introduce your firearm? Just before the punch that causes permanent brain damage? There are plenty of deaths or permanent brain damage from fist fights.

BCGlocker wrote:

Abraham wrote:BCGlocker,

You stated: "You can't introduce a firearm (use of deadly force) into a fist fight."

If you're a young, big adult and you start punching a much smaller, elderly man, do you consider that a fist fight?

If so, I guess the smaller man is just supposed to tolerate being punched out...and perhaps die.

I don't consider such a scenario a fist fight.

Yes, fists were part of the equation, but in my opinion, they could be deadly weapons.

I think it could come under the header of deadly assault by the younger, bigger, stronger man.

Agree or disagree with such a scenario?

"Proportionality" is just one of the consideration for use as a defense from prosecution. Others including disparity of force (old vs young, one vs. multiple assailants, female vs male..etc). If there is no immediate substantial risk of death or serious injury to you or another, deadly force should not be introduced.

The problem is "Proportionality". You can't introduce a firearm (use of deadly force) into a fist fight. Once again, we see CCWers fail to MYOB (Mind Your Own Business).

This section should shed some light on 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.
---
Last amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

Using deadly force when only force is justified is not acceptable. However, the production of a gun and the threat of deadly force is legally acceptable even when only force is justified.

My comments here are in no way an attempt to condone or justify what the guy did in this instance, most especially the badge part.

Article doesn't say anything about the shooter having a license. What it says is:

The gun-toting suspect then flashed a Concealed Weapons Permit badge, which the district attorney’s office belives was purchased online.

Anybody can buy a badge......

BCGlocker wrote:The problem is "Proportionality". You can't introduce a firearm (use of deadly force) into a fist fight. Once again, we see CCWers fail to MYOB (Mind Your Own Business).

An unarmed person attacking you can absolutely justify a lethal response. Many people are killed by punches every year.

Nothing good has ever come out of owning or flashing a CHL Badge!

philip964 wrote:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/c ... -1.2618098

Disturbance at church over a seat, escalated by a man who walks up with his gun drawn and holding his CHL Badge in his other hand.

He shoots and kills a man in church after the man hits him and says "what are you going to do shoot me".

Charged with Manslaughter.

Giving anti gunners more ammunition.

He shoots and kills a man in church after the man hits him and says "what are you going to do shoot me". Asked and answered.

I think those would probably be the last words of more than a few idiots.

Crossfire wrote:Nothing good has ever come out of owning or flashing a CHL Badge!

Only time good will come of it is if your trying to win an "I'm a moron" contest.

Crossfire wrote:Nothing good has ever come out of owning or flashing a CHL Badge!

What about a sash?

Ran across this while looking for something else:

http://www.wfmz.com/news/southeastern-p ... /454238205

Sentenced to 10-20 years for voluntary manslaughter.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2016 2:23 pm

Crossfire wrote:Nothing good has ever come out of owning or flashing a CHL Badge!

What about a sash?

Only if it does not clash with my tiara!!

The shooter in this situation introduced himself into the conflict. Would that not be the same as starting a fight and then shooting the guy because he punched you?

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:57 pm The shooter in this situation introduced himself into the conflict. Would that not be the same as starting a fight and then shooting the guy because he punched you?

It sounds like that is what the jury thought.

WildBill wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 5:35 pm

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 3:57 pm The shooter in this situation introduced himself into the conflict. Would that not be the same as starting a fight and then shooting the guy because he punched you?

It sounds like that is what the jury thought.

It is funny. When I received my CHL originally, it had the affect of making me much less likely to open my mouth. I became very concerned with putting myself into a situation of having to use deadly force.

BCGlocker wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2016 7:09 am The problem is "Proportionality". You can't introduce a firearm (use of deadly force) into a fist fight. Once again, we see CCWers fail to MYOB (Mind Your Own Business).

Let just say I disagree.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 96356.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-ta ... l-44440413
https://www.news-journalonline.com/news ... aytona-bar
https://abc13.com/university-basketball ... h/3918119/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38992393

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/ind ... appen.html

Your entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

There is no statue in Texas that supports your opinion.

And there are plenty of facts to support the contrary