TexasCHLforum.com

dewayneward wrote:Yea, I'll agree that avoidance is the thing to go for. I think (for me anyway), I'll be trying to backpeddle trying to reason with the guy. I would hope its assumed that I (and others) would be trying to de-escalate and get out of the situation. I ain't looking for a fight, quite the opposite.

In the olden days though before I had a gun and there was "no way out", I have a background in martial arts and I would defend myself.

the "problem" now is that should a scenario present itself, I got a chunk of metal that could be pulled away from me in a confrontation. An "against CHL" thing for me is that before I would have fought the person. you have to admit, that having a gun on you doesnt make it so easy to sidekick someone

I do get that every situation is different and I am by no means itching to use my gun. more than likely I will be with my family and while I dont want to have to deal with the nightmares of hurting someone, I certainly dont want my wife or small children to witness something like that. I've just been around people that for whatever reason, just flip out.

@keith, is there language talking to serious bodily injury as a means for self defense?

I think about the very same issue. Having the gun makes me more likely to back down. Realizing it could be taken away and used against me is something I always have in my mind.

dewayneward wrote: @keith, is there language talking to serious bodily injury as a means for self defense?

TPC Title 2 Chapter 9 deals with justification
TPC Title 5 Chapter 22.05 defines Deadly Conduct which refers to the serious bodily injury
TPC Title 10 Chapter 46 deals with weapons and their use.

These all play together to determine the factors.

I am no law expert by any means. There are others on here that may be able to more clearly define some of the laws.

If you get an opportunity to attend one, Charles Cotton puts on a Use of Force seminar that is 'par excellence'. It will clear a lot of things up on use of force/deadly force and provide some examples of how/when/why you can or can't use them in a given situation.

I'd welcome the opportunity to attend one of his seminars. I hear they are very educational. Does he do them regularly, and up here in the Metroplex?

joe817 wrote:I'd welcome the opportunity to attend one of his seminars. I hear they are very educational. Does he do them regularly, and up here in the Metroplex?

I bet if he did one in the DFW area it would fill up fast. Maybe he could be talked into it. I would be more than willing to pay a fee for attending.

joe817 wrote:I'd welcome the opportunity to attend one of his seminars. I hear they are very educational. Does he do them regularly, and up here in the Metroplex?

He has had a few up here in the past. His latest was at the TSRA convention in Mesquite. Maybe we can get on his schedule this fall if we can find a venue to hold the seminar and cover his expenses.

Oh Charles??

I'm sure the new Texas Statdium would hold enough people, and I'm sure it would be available, oh, around late december/january...

DoubleJ wrote:I'm sure the new Texas Statdium would hold enough people, and I'm sure it would be available, oh, around late december/january...

You thinks that's funny?

03Lightningrocks wrote:

DoubleJ wrote:I'm sure the new Texas Statdium would hold enough people, and I'm sure it would be available, oh, around late december/january...

You thinks that's funny?

Funny, but honest.

I'm a realist.

on the OC side of thangs, here's a website an associate of mine passed along to me.

Knives R Us has a pretty good assortment of OC, my buddy swears by the Spitfires for inconspicuous keychain carry.

dewayneward wrote:SeamusTx and Keith,

the way I am reading this, if someone gets in "your space" and tells you he is gonna pound you, it looks like you aren't justified in shooting from the way I am reading everything.

I've been out all day. It looks like others covered this topic pretty well, but I have a little to add.

• Verbal provocation alone does not justify any use of force.
  
  There is a gray area where the person is saying something like, "Give me your wallet or I'll kill you," or "Get in the car or I'll kill you." Those are elements of robbery or kidnapping, which are justifications for the use of deadly force.
  
  However, if there are no reliable witnesses, the person can deny saying what he said. Or if he's deceased, the investigators have only your word on it.
• One unarmed attacker can kill you. Two or more obviously can. The disparity of force becomes a consideration.
  
  Remember that Gordon Hale was punched by a guy who weighed something like 300 pounds, and Mr. Hale had a cracked skull when he shot to protect himself. The DA still did everything he could to obtain an indictment (which he failed to do).
  
  A woman or elderly or disabled person who is attacked by someone who poses a serious threat is much more likely to have a credible justification.
• Distance and witnesses are your friends. If you are confronted in a secluded place, get to a place where there are people. This might be as simple as walking into a business, even it is not a business that you have anything to do with. If you can get them to call 911, better yet.
  
  Someone who wants to make trouble without witnesses may back off when he knows that someone will see him and probably call 911. (Of course, there are lunatics and totally reckless people who will not back off, but at least you have witnesses.)

- Jim

Jim, very good words of wisdom. I agree with all. Thank you.

Thanks.

- Jim

03Lightningrocks wrote:

dewayneward wrote: Tell the dude your gay or something...LOL.

I actually had a buddy do this at a bar. Sparing the details, he got into trouble with some other guy over his wife. My buddy told the guy not to worry, that he was gay and in no way interested in his wife. Somehow that pig flew, and we had a good laugh afterwards. Point being, it was a bar brawl waiting to happen - diffused by some quick thinking. No telling how it might have turned out otherwise.

dewayneward wrote: is there language talking to serious bodily injury as a means for self defense?

Others have answered this already, but I wanted to make sur eyou got the actual law on it.

Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or


From this we can easily see that you can shoot to defend yourself from an attack that i snot one of the listed crimes we all get to know and remember. Now, the question of an unarmed attacker is a separate issue. Can the person cause serious bodily injury to you? Well, that all depends on the situation AND what the local D.A. will accept as serious bodily injury.

Section 1.07(a) defines this as:

(46) "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

The vague terms in it are what is serious permanent disfigurement and what is protracted loss or impairment. Each local D.A. will define those differently. In Bexar County, we understood it to mean a broken bone or an injury requiring hospitalization admission (not just ER treatment). Stitches did not count for example. The D.A. at the time (it has changed so I do not know their current policy) had pretty harsh standards and I never did come up on a case where he accepted disfigurement. I mention that because, as way of contrast, I had a case in Caldwell County which the D.A. accepted based on a scar that was about 1/4" long. They saw this as permanent disfigurement and accepted the serious bodily injury upgrade on an assault case. The jury agreed and the subject was convicted.

So, this would leave us looking at the disparity of force argument on the situation. Was the suspect a 300 pound weightlifter and the victim a 95 pound female? This would probably allow deadly force. Was the suspect the 95 pound female and the victim the weightlifter? This probably would not. If there were multiple attackers, it is much easier to show the disparity and the chances of serious injury. If two well built thugs that looked like they just got out of prison came up to me unarmed and started to attack, I would think I would be justified in using a firearm to defend myself. If it were two UNARMED twelve year olds, I might have a lot more trouble justifying it.

This is also one of the reasons I stress proper report writing to new recruits so much. What goes on paper is what counts in court. It is also why I suggest saying as little as possible to the police after a shooting until your lawyer can intervene. You need his help in explaining the little details of why you acted the way you did. Most of the time, you will be justified (we generally think and act how the law intends us to) but you may not know how to explain it well enough.

Thanks, Steve.

It's ironic that a felony charge of aggravated assault can be prosecuted on the basis of a fairly minor injury; but even a severe beating may not be considered a justification for the use of deadly force.

I suppose the legislature does not want fistfights to turn into shootings and stabbings, but that happens anyway among people who couldn't care less about the law.

- Jim