Sec 9.31 and 9.32

[Scott B.]

Tried searching but my google/forum-fu was lacking.

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
9.31 SELF-DEFENSE

9.32 DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON

Why Sec 9.31 and 9.32 are in two sections. Is it as simple as Force versus Deadly Force?

Does anybody have clear cut turn of phrase they use when teaching this section?

Thanks,

[baldeagle]

Yes, it's the difference between force and deadly force. Think of it this way. If someone threatens you with force (approaches you with a baseball bat saying they are going to beat you), you have the right to draw your weapon and threaten the use of deadly force. If the attacker then recedes, you cannot use deadly force against him. If he reintroduces his attack, you can threaten him again. But you cannot use deadly force unless the threat is so great that you are in fear for your life.

For example, the attacker threatens you with the baseball bat from a distance of 25 feet. You draw your weapon and warn him to back off. He backs off. You cannot use deadly force. He renews his threat, moving toward you slowly. You can continue to threaten him until he arrives within the 21 foot safety perimeter. At that point, you have to decide if his intent is to frighten you or to actually attack you. If you believe, and a reasonable person would believe, that he was actually going to attack you, then you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Tried searching but my google/forum-fu was lacking.

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
9.31 SELF-DEFENSE

9.32 DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON

Why Sec 9.31 and 9.32 are in two sections. Is it as simple as Force versus Deadly Force?

Does anybody have clear cut turn of phrase they use when teaching this section?

Thanks,

At the beginning of the use of force portion of the class, I lay out the sections we'll be covering. (9.31, 9.32, etc.) As to §9.31 v. §9.32, I tell them "You can't shoot 'um if you can punch 'um in the nose. So let's see what the law says about punching people in the nose." I then point out that 9.31 deals with non-lethal force, while 9.32 deals with deadly force. I also point out that 9.31 and 9.32 are building blocks. All 9.32 does is adopt the requirements of 9.31 and add a higher risk, i.e. risk of death or serious bodily injury. "The risk to you isn't a bloody nose, but death or serious bodily injury." Obviously, I go into a great deal of detail, but that's how I introduce the topic.

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

And let me add this...... if you ever have a chance to attend one of Charles L. Cotton's seminars on use of force and deadly force in Texas, drop whatever else you've got planned and go. It is WELL worth the effort and cost. I've been to two of them, and any chance I can get to go to another one up this way, I'll do it just to refresh my memory.

[Skiprr]

And let me add this...... if you ever have a chance to attend one of Charles L. Cotton's seminars on use of force and deadly force in Texas, drop whatever else you've got planned and go. It is WELL worth the effort and cost. I've been to two of them, and any chance I can get to go to another one up this way, I'll do it just to refresh my memory.

I'll echo that. I've been to three over the years (lucky enough to be a PSC member and live in the general area).

Not only are the presentations well-organized, clear, and engaging, but you gotta remember that Charles has been involved hands-on with almost every firearm law in Texas passed in the last couple of decades...plus a bit longer. And he has an encyclopedic memory. The upshot is any seminar you attend, you can be assured you have the most current legislative and DPS information and, if you ask, he can even give you detail about how and why a particular law was passed.

[Ruark]

You can continue to threaten him until he arrives within the 21 foot safety perimeter. At that point, you have to decide if his intent is to frighten you or to actually attack you. If you believe, and a reasonable person would believe, that he was actually going to attack you, then you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself.

Uh, that 21 feet isn't encoded in law anywhere. That comes from some experiment where somebody was able to get to a test victim 21 feet away before they could draw and fire. A LOT of criminals can't move that fast, and a LOT of carriers can draw and fire faster than that. It's not some "magic red line" where if he steps across it you can blow his head off. And the police certainly aren't going to pull out a measuring tape and say "hey, it's 20 feet 10 inches, he's good!" or "hey, it's 21 feet 2 inches, book'im!"

If someone were walking towards me with a baseball bat, uttering verbal threats, etc. I would have my hand on my weapon during that time (and giving him verbal warnings), and he would need to be a LOT closer than 21 feet before I would draw and fire. Even with my weapon concealed under a tropical shirt, I can draw and fire in way under 1 second. I think people make way, way too much out of this silly "21 feet" thing.

[Vol Texan]

You can continue to threaten him until he arrives within the 21 foot safety perimeter. At that point, you have to decide if his intent is to frighten you or to actually attack you. If you believe, and a reasonable person would believe, that he was actually going to attack you, then you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself.

Uh, that 21 feet isn't encoded in law anywhere. That comes from some experiment where somebody was able to get to a test victim 21 feet away before they could draw and fire. A LOT of criminals can't move that fast, and a LOT of carriers can draw and fire faster than that. It's not some "magic red line" where if he steps across it you can blow his head off. And the police certainly aren't going to pull out a measuring tape and say "hey, it's 20 feet 10 inches, he's good!" or "hey, it's 21 feet 2 inches, book'im!"

If someone were walking towards me with a baseball bat, uttering verbal threats, etc. I would have my hand on my weapon during that time, and he would need to be a LOT closer than 21 feet before I would draw and fire. Even with my weapon concealed under a tropical shirt, I can draw and fire in way under 1 second. I think people make way, way too much out of this silly "21 feet" thing.

True, the 21 feet is not encoded in the law, but there is enough study behind it to justify that distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

Perhaps it would have been better said, "If a person is 50 feet away and starts waving a bat...," followed with, "But once they get a lot closer (e.g. 21 feet or so), then ..." Either way, the point is well made, but the original phrasing makes it easier to mince words, and I added some weasel words in my description.

[Ruark]

You can continue to threaten him until he arrives within the 21 foot safety perimeter. At that point, you have to decide if his intent is to frighten you or to actually attack you. If you believe, and a reasonable person would believe, that he was actually going to attack you, then you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself.

Uh, that 21 feet isn't encoded in law anywhere. That comes from some experiment where somebody was able to get to a test victim 21 feet away before they could draw and fire. A LOT of criminals can't move that fast, and a LOT of carriers can draw and fire faster than that. It's not some "magic red line" where if he steps across it you can blow his head off. And the police certainly aren't going to pull out a measuring tape and say "hey, it's 20 feet 10 inches, he's good!" or "hey, it's 21 feet 2 inches, book'im!"

If someone were walking towards me with a baseball bat, uttering verbal threats, etc. I would have my hand on my weapon during that time, and he would need to be a LOT closer than 21 feet before I would draw and fire. Even with my weapon concealed under a tropical shirt, I can draw and fire in way under 1 second. I think people make way, way too much out of this silly "21 feet" thing.

True, the 21 feet is not encoded in the law, but there is enough study behind it to justify that distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

Perhaps it would have been better said, "If a person is 50 feet away and starts waving a bat...," followed with, "But once they get a lot closer (e.g. 21 feet or so), then ..." Either way, the point is well made, but the original phrasing makes it easier to mince words, and I added some weasel words in my description.

You're right, of course. I think after all is said and done, it's a judgement call. Only you can decide when it's time to conclude that you're in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury. And in my view, you should go through stages of avoidance as the situation permits. In the baseball bat case, you can start with verbal warnings, then expose your weapon with a verbal warning, then draw your weapon with a verbal warning, then fire. That shows you took every possible step to avoid the use of deadly force. Of course, sometimes that's not possible; many self defense shootings are very explosive and instantaneous.

[Pawpaw]

And let me add this...... if you ever have a chance to attend one of Charles L. Cotton's seminars on use of force and deadly force in Texas, drop whatever else you've got planned and go. It is WELL worth the effort and cost. I've been to two of them, and any chance I can get to go to another one up this way, I'll do it just to refresh my memory.

I'll echo that. I've been to three over the years (lucky enough to be a PSC member and live in the general area).

Not only are the presentations well-organized, clear, and engaging, but you gotta remember that Charles has been involved hands-on with almost every firearm law in Texas passed in the last couple of decades...plus a bit longer. And he has an encyclopedic memory. The upshot is any seminar you attend, you can be assured you have the most current legislative and DPS information and, if you ask, he can even give you detail about how and why a particular law was passed.

Amen!

[Charles L. Cotton]

If someone were walking towards me with a baseball bat, uttering verbal threats, etc. I would have my hand on my weapon during that time (and giving him verbal warnings), and he would need to be a LOT closer than 21 feet before I would draw and fire.

Then you will be a dead man.

The so-called 21 foot rule is a misnomer. The concept was initially developed and investigated by Sgt. Dennis Tueller (Salt Lake City PD) and he refers to it as the Action Response Time. Another term is Reactionary Gap. I have run the the Tueller Drill dozens of times in various classes. It's always an eyeopener and no one, not a single person, has gotten two rounds off in 21 feet. The average is closer to 30 to 35 feet and I've seen some results at over 40 feet. The reason the Tueller Drill requires firing two rounds is because we are simulating the first round not stopping the threat for any number of reasons. The presumption is that the second round fired will stop the threat, but that's far from a given. So the true Action Response Time could be even longer than the distance to the second round fired in the Tueller Drill.

Watch the video below and listen to Dennis talking about their test results and variables including the shooter's abilities, concealment, multiple attackers, etc. He also notes that the distances obtained in the Tueller Drill are when the shooter knows what is coming and that's a huge factor. Run the Tueller yourself and I think it will change your mindset as to "how close is too close."

Chas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxeTNnEWmbY

[OlBill]

Great video, thanks. Interesting his comments about dealing with cover garnents. We ran the experiment with SIMS guns. Our results were the same.

We added a bit of motivation.

[ELB]

There's plenty of study and trials behind the 21 foot "rule" that say it is not a rule and as others have noted it is not an objective justification to shoot or don't shoot for a specific distance for a specific weapon. If you think you will ever have to employ the....Tueller concept or demonstration, I guess... in defense of a shooting, you would do well to understand what it really means.

The guys I have trained with regularly run this, especially with new shooters, and it is indeed instructive to find out what your own reaction time is against various people (and remember that you know this is coming). The number one thing I got out of it is to NOT STAND THERE WAITING FOR THE ATTACKER, no matter how fast my draw is - GET OUT of the kill zone he has picked for you (hint - it is where you are standing). The goal for any self-defense encounter is to go home safe, not necessarily get one or two or six rounds in the other guy, so avoiding getting clubbed/stabbed/punched by moving or running away is just as good as shooting him down.

Yeah, my mobility is not what it once was, but almost any movement is better than none, with perhaps the exception of straight back. It is really hard to run backwards, or turn and run back, faster than someone else can run forward. Moving left or right is good, moving forward but at roughly 45 degree angles is even better -- it forces the opponent to really have to change his momentum and planning. Of course learning to draw and shoot while doing this is part of the package.

Of course obstacles on the scene will channel your movements, but sometimes they can be used as cover or obstacles against your opponent as well.

It is well worth getting some airsoft pistols (and masks) and training knives and trying this out with a partner, or even just using your finger and yelling "Bang!" If you are honest with yourself, you will learn something.

Then add multiple attackers. :)

[Charles L. Cotton]

. . . It is well worth getting some airsoft pistols (and masks) and training knives and trying this out with a partner, or even just using your finger and yelling "Bang!" If you are honest with yourself, you will learn something.

Then add multiple attackers. :)

A shoot-house is in the expansion plan at PSC and I can't wait to have it for training. We'll be doing both live fire and force-on-force training. I'm like a kid waiting on Santa Claus on Christmas!

Chas.

[Ruark]

Well, I'd love to crack my knuckles and jump into this discussion, but I'm at a disadvantage because I've never run the Tueller Drill or anything similar. That being said, my armchair-quarterback comments:

Of course there are variables, the biggest one being "knowing that it's coming." That pertains to situational awareness, of course. If you're looking down at your smartphone and a casual passer-by suddenly leaps at you from 21 feet, sure, you're probably a goner.

But if, as in the baseball bat scenario, he's already threatening you and is walking towards you, and you ALREADY have your hand on your gun, he's not going to make it to you alive, unless he's within 8-10 feet or you're slower than cold molasses. Arms relaxed, with the gun under a tropical shirt, I can easily draw and fire two shots into a sheet of typing paper @ 10 feet in about 1.25 seconds, and I don't consider myself to be "fast." If my hand is actually resting on the gun, .75 seconds or less. If somebody's walking towards me with a knife and informing me of my imminent demise, I'm not going to be standing there like a fencepost. I'll have my hand on the gun, and when he passes about the 10 foot mark, it'll be out and pointed at him. I'm sorry, but I can't see him covering 10 feet faster than I can twitch my trigger finger.

[jkurtz]

Well, I'd love to crack my knuckles and jump into this discussion, but I'm at a disadvantage because I've never run the Tueller Drill or anything similar. That being said, my armchair-quarterback comments:

Of course there are variables, the biggest one being "knowing that it's coming." That pertains to situational awareness, of course. If you're looking down at your smartphone and a casual passer-by suddenly leaps at you from 21 feet, sure, you're probably a goner.

But if, as in the baseball bat scenario, he's already threatening you and is walking towards you, and you ALREADY have your hand on your gun, he's not going to make it to you alive, unless he's within 8-10 feet or you're slower than cold molasses. Arms relaxed, with the gun under a tropical shirt, I can easily draw and fire two shots into a sheet of typing paper @ 10 feet in about 1.25 seconds, and I don't consider myself to be "fast." If my hand is actually resting on the gun, .75 seconds or less. If somebody's walking towards me with a knife and informing me of my imminent demise, I'm not going to be standing there like a fencepost. I'll have my hand on the gun, and when he passes about the 10 foot mark, it'll be out and pointed at him. I'm sorry, but I can't see him covering 10 feet faster than I can twitch my trigger finger.

Although I am sure that you can do as you claim, after all, I have no reason to doubt you, I would like to make two points.

One, shooting at a non-threatening piece of paper under controlled conditions is very different from shooting at a moving person that you know intends to do you harm. The added stress of the real life encounter can cause hiccups which slow your times.

My second point, and the one I believe to me the most important, is that how quickly you can draw and get off a round isn't that important. The distance you can effectively stop the threat is more important. The fact that you can successfully shoot someone at ten feet doesn't matter if that person is still able to continue their advance and proceed to inflict deadly force on you.