TexasCHLforum.com

I thought the standard post-shooting actions were "shovel" and "shut up"....

drjoker wrote:The tactical flashlight is the best "weapon" that is not legally a "weapon" to use for self defense in foreign countries, airports, 30.06 posted places. This is because in even the most draconian weapon banned places, flashlights are still legal.

Flashlights are good. I have also traveled with a cane.

Jumping Frog wrote:

drjoker wrote:The tactical flashlight is the best "weapon" that is not legally a "weapon" to use for self defense in foreign countries, airports, 30.06 posted places. This is because in even the most draconian weapon banned places, flashlights are still legal.

Flashlights are good. I have also traveled with a cane.

Roger that, and I never travel without my flashlight and cane....even if I am traveling with a gun.

cb1000rider wrote:

rotor wrote:What you should also realize is that anything you post here will be used in a court case, probably against you.

What is it that I'm saying here that I wouldn't want used it court? Can't think of anything. Use it. Use all of it. Please use it!

If you're concerned about it, ask the site owner to stop allowing Google crawls. The content can be made much less searchable.

I read this today... I wonder how many people would have just shot this guy:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07 ... s-planned/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hear an accusation in your voice, and I don't think you're being entirely fair here. I think that, realistically, most people would say, "it depends on what happens next," and that is an entirely rational answer. I'm coming up on 61 years old and have a fragile spine. I'm not bum-rushing anybody unless it's really a life-or-death situation and I don't have a gun in my hand. In such a situation as this homeowner, first of all, I would likely stay in the home and protect my family and call 911. Work can wait. There is no employer in the world worth the life of my wife and kids. Not one. Secondly, if circumstances forced me to exit the home to confront the intruder, he would be confronted at gun-point. What happens to him after that is entirely in his hands. He will be commanded in no uncertain terms to cease and desist, and to get proned out. If he bum-rushes me, he will get shot......how bad depends on whether he stops or not after being shot the first time. But all of that rests on the head of the person who A) illegally entered your property, B) refused to submit to a command to desist and get down, and C) initiated an assault against you.

But the point is that there's a lot of leeway there along what is truthfully a response continuum which permits a lot of different ethical responses depending on the situation. And, about 99% of the time there is no good tactical reason to leave the house. And in those rare cases where there is a good tactical reason.....like let's say that a gang had set a fire to force you out of the house....then whatever you do to them is on their shoulders, and it would be wrong to make some kind of moral equivalency argument implying that the property owner is somehow ethically challenged. That's more of a tactic of the left.

No accusation at all. I just think that sometimes there are alternatives to firing a gun. I'm not sure that it's truly the option of last resort for everyone on this forum, but that's an opinion, not an accusation.
And I understand if you're 61 and not quite as limber as you used to be, I certainly wouldn't expect the same outcome...

Criminals are criminals. If you're breaking into someone's house and if the result is getting tied up or shot, there's only one person to blame...

george wrote:Options are good. Why do you think LEO carries a stick, mace, Taser, flashlight, and pistol.

If your only option is a pistol, you are limited.

"If all you have is a hammer, all of your problems will look like nails"

I like nails

george wrote:Options are good. Why do you think LEO carries a stick, mace, Taser, flashlight, and pistol.

If your only option is a pistol, you are limited.

"If all you have is a hammer, all of your problems will look like nails"

Well, let me first acknowledge that these are not crystal clear, either/or, black/white type issues. There are all shades of gray and the issues are heavily fact-dependent. The other side of the coin of having less-lethal alternatives is it opens a person up to second guessing. Happens to cops all the time (Hey, why didn't that policeman pepper spray that convenient store robber instead of shooting him!").

If you have no alternative but to use deadly force, then it is harder to question whether deadly force was "immediately necessary" -- as required by statute.

However, if you have less-than-lethal alternatives available to you, then you open yourself up to getting questioned about why didn't you just spray him instead of shooting him. Was deadly force really "immediately necessary"? Even when deadly force would otherwise be completely warranted, there is now room for second guessing and scrutiny about whether you should have chosen the less than lethal route.

Let's review the relevant portions of the statute:

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
. . .
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
...
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
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:
....(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); (i.e., robbery)

For example, someone comes up to you and says, "Give me all your money!" Under §9.32(a)(2)(B), the robbery means you are justified in using deadly force if it is "immediately necessary" as specified in §9.32(a)(2). Furthermore, §9.32(b) says your belief that deadly force was immediately necessary is presumed reasonable when it is a robbery.

However, "presumed reasonable" is a rebuttable presumption. If the D.A. decides to show that your belief that deadly force was required was unreasonable because you had other viable alternatives such as pepper spray, you could find yourself at trial.

I've actually had an attorney say to me in social conversation -- not as paid legal advice -- that I'd be better off if deadly force was my only available option.

george wrote:Options are good. Why do you think LEO carries a stick, mace, Taser, flashlight, and pistol.

If your only option is a pistol, you are limited.

"If all you have is a hammer, all of your problems will look like nails"

While we do have options, we do NOT have the option of any sort of object that can be considered a club. That is against Texas Penal Code. Thus law enforcement has more options than the average citizen is allowed to have at their disposal.

Jumping Frog wrote:

george wrote:Options are good. Why do you think LEO carries a stick, mace, Taser, flashlight, and pistol.

If your only option is a pistol, you are limited.

"If all you have is a hammer, all of your problems will look like nails"

Well, let me first acknowledge that these are not crystal clear, either/or, black/white type issues. There are all shades of gray and the issues are heavily fact-dependent. The other side of the coin of having less-lethal alternatives is it opens a person up to second guessing. Happens to cops all the time (Hey, why didn't that policeman pepper spray that convenient store robber instead of shooting him!").

If you have no alternative but to use deadly force, then it is harder to question whether deadly force was "immediately necessary" -- as required by statute.

However, if you have less-than-lethal alternatives available to you, then you open yourself up to getting questioned about why didn't you just spray him instead of shooting him. Was deadly force really "immediately necessary"? Even when deadly force would otherwise be completely warranted, there is now room for second guessing and scrutiny about whether you should have chosen the less than lethal route.

Let's review the relevant portions of the statute:

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
. . .
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
...
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
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:
....(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); (i.e., robbery)

For example, someone comes up to you and says, "Give me all your money!" Under §9.32(a)(2)(B), the robbery means you are justified in using deadly force if it is YOUR BELIEF it is "immediately necessary" as specified in §9.32(a)(2). Furthermore, §9.32(b) says your belief that deadly force was immediately necessary is presumed reasonable when it is a robbery.

However, "presumed reasonable" is a rebuttable presumption. If the D.A. decides to show that your belief that deadly force was required was unreasonable because you had other viable alternatives such as pepper spray, you could find yourself at trial.

I've actually had an attorney say to me in social conversation -- not as paid legal advice -- that I'd be better off if deadly force was my only available option.

One thing that I see all of you overlooking is the blue part

Well, there is one thing you are overlooking in the phrase "the actor reasonably believes".

It sounds as if someone should interpret that as "I am a reasonable guy and I believe it". But that isn't how it actually ends up working. Assuming everything has gone to heck in a handbasket and one is faced with the unfortunate prospect of facing a so-called "jury of one's peers", that isn't how they'll interpret it. The jury is going to evaluate whether they believe a reasonable person would have thought that way. If they don't think your beliefs were reasonable, then stick a fork in cause you are done.

The OP brings up some very important points, as do many of the subsequent replies. In my case this topic, essentially "the ramifications of using your handgun in self defense", was covered extensively by our CHL instructor (also a LEO). He provided several examples, both those that were familiar to the class (had been in the news) and others that were probably more typical of what a CHL might experience. He also recommended several books to read to help get our minds around the possibility of actually having to use a handgun in self defense, etc.

I do hope that a majority of those that have gone to the trouble to obtain a CHL have prepared responsibly. This includes practice as well as preparing their mindset - or at least some prep as you never can really prepare for every situation. Developing a mindset of situational awareness is essential and can help avoid risky situations. I also hope that the revised CHL course will include adequate time on this subject.

This is definitely not the "shoot first" crowd hanging around on this forum.

drjoker wrote:The most important thing is NOT to talk to police before your lawyer gets there.

This is bad advice. You should not talk to police in an interrogation without a lawyer, but you absolutely should tell police at the scene what happened. It's your only chance to tell you story, which is vital to your defense. The first thing you should do after a shooting is call 911 and explain briefly what happened. E.g. My name is John Doe. I'm at 5th and Harbor. I just shot a man who was trying to rob me at gunpoint. Please send police and an ambulance as soon as possible. I am dressed in a red tshirt, blue jeans and cowboy boots. I'm black. When the police arrive I will have my hands in the air and will surrender to them peacefully.

When the police arrive, you should give them a specific account of what took place. E.g. I was walking down this sidewalk when that man on the ground jumped out of that doorway, pointed a gun at me and said, "Give me all your money." I threw my wallet over there (point to wallet), and when he turned to retrieve it, I drew my weapon, pointed it at him and told him to freeze. He turned toward me, gun in hand, and I was afraid he was going to shoot. So I shot him. He dropped his gun and it ended up over there (point to gun). When I was certain he was no longer a threat, I called 911. There were three witnesses, but two of them have left. The gentleman standing across the street saw the whole thing.

If you do not give the police a basic description of the facts, then they have to try and figure out what happened. Their reconstruction of the scene may not match what you know happened and could place you in a bad light, leading to charges and a trial. You do not want the police to figure out what happened. You want to tell them what happened. If they don't believe you, then they have to find evidence to prove that you are lying. (It goes without saying that you should never lie to the police.)

If the police ask you to go to the station, tell them you'll be happy to but you will invoke your fifth amendment right until a lawyer is present.

baldeagle wrote:

drjoker wrote:The most important thing is NOT to talk to police before your lawyer gets there.

This is bad advice.

That would not be my advice, either.

baldeagle wrote:When the police arrive, you should give them a specific account of what took place. E.g. I was walking down this sidewalk when that man on the ground jumped out of that doorway, pointed a gun at me and said, "Give me all your money." I threw my wallet over there (point to wallet), and when he turned to retrieve it, I drew my weapon, pointed it at him and told him to freeze. He turned toward me, gun in hand, and I was afraid he was going to shoot. So I shot him. He dropped his gun and it ended up over there (point to gun). When I was certain he was no longer a threat, I called 911. There were three witnesses, but two of them have left. The gentleman standing across the street saw the whole thing.

I know we are quibbling over minor distinctions, but that is far more specific that I would personally be. Here are the guidelines I have decided to follow, should I ever face these circumstance.

{Jumping Frog: Below are my personal notes that I took while watching an episode on "Personal Defense TV" a couple of years ago, summarizing Massad Ayoob's 5 critical points to remember immediately following a shooting. I believe these are within TOS, because they are my personal notes -- this is not cut and pasted from a copyrighted article.}

Before we get into the five points, I always worry that the police are called for a "man with a gun". I am the man with the gun. That is why one of the critical skills that we teach is not just being able to draw quickly without looking at the gun, but being able to keep an eye on the danger zone while holstering one-handed by feel so you can see what is going on around you, and when the officer gets there you are not the threatening figure with the pistol. You are the person in the non-threatening position, say your hands are about shoulder high with palms forward showing you are unarmed.

Call the Police.

When they arrive, "Officer, I am the one who called you, this is the man who attacked me, he may still have a weapon, I do not know if there are any more."

Whoever calls in first gets to be the victim complainant. There is only one other role open in the play, and that's the perpetrator. You want to be the one who makes the telephone call. The perpetrator is laying there in a puddle of blood doing a remarkably convincing imitation of a victim. You by default become the perp if you do not make the call in. The system is keyed on the assumption that whoever made that initial call is the victim.

I think there are five points that really need to be covered here. A lot of folks will say don't say anything until your lawyer gets there. That's too late, there are a lot of things the cops need to know before they can establish in their mind who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. The 5 point checklist I teach is this:

1. Officer, this man attacked me.
2. I will sign the complaint.
3. Evidence is here.
4. The witnesses are there.
5. Officer, you will have my full cooperation in 24 hours after I have spoken with counsel.

If we don't say those things, if we don't point out the evidence, it disappears.

I did one case in Connecticut. The shooting went down on a cold, icy night. The spent brass will literally blow across an icy street from the wind and from passing cars. If you look at it, 9 MM or 45 brass is just the right size to get caught in the treads of people's shoes or in the treads of passing cars. The evidence that he shot at you if you don't point it out to the officers is gone and it is never coming back. The witnesses are over here thinking could this be some drug shooting or vengeful gang-banger. They don't know what's going on. "Do we really want to get involved?" If they leave, the testimony that would have proven you innocent leaves with them.

So basically, to recap:

1. Point out Perpetrator to Police. ("This man attacked me, clearly showing he is the perpetrator, you are the victim).
2. Tell Police you will "Sign the Complaint". ("I will sign the complaint." Cop language that tells them, "He is the victim complainant, the guy on the ground is the subject of the complaint.)
3. Point out the evidence to the police.
4. Point out Witnesses to Police.
5. Will Give Full Cooperation in 24 hours After speaking with Attorney. (From then on, whatever else is said, "Officer, you know how serious this is. You will have my full cooperation in 24 hours after I have spoken with counsel").

At that point, don't offer anything more. That is your name rank and serial number. Basically, the police officer who is there on the scene will be the one whom the court will be looking to, to say, "what do you think?". The court, the prosecutor, and the investigating detectives will follow him. The tone of this whole investigation is going to be set in the seconds and minutes after the shooting has taken place. The four or five minutes after the shooting may determine where you get to live for the next 20 years.

{I especially agree with the common sense notion that you never get a second chance to make a first impression. You must set the tone in the first seconds and minutes of dealing with law enforcement.

Personally, I have weighed the pros and cons of keeping totally silent versus dealing with the five points, above. I look at this way. If I actually become a criminal and start deliberately committing crimes, then I will follow the defense attorney's suggestion to keep my mouth shut.

However, if I am a law abiding citizen who has just encountered a BG perpetrating a felony on me, I will act like an honest citizen and make the complaint per the guidelines above. It seems like a reasonable course to take.}