The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
gigag04 wrote:Those that feel they have to automatically shoot someone because they cleared leather frighten me.
Please don't stop using your brain just because you draw a gun.
Disagree. CHLs are taught much more (in a good class anyway). When you pull that gun, and when you pull the trigger are two very different but equally important events. If the threat of deadly force stops the threat, better not squeeze one off. This is how good people get hemmed up for shooting some bad person in the back.Beiruty wrote:gigag04 wrote:Those that feel they have to automatically shoot someone because they cleared leather frighten me.
Please don't stop using your brain just because you draw a gun.
Cops do not shoot someone each time they draw. Cops shouts orders, to control their subjects. I guess CHLs are taught to only deploy deadly force to counter an imminent threat of death by a deadly force. If the threat is terminated ( bad guy flee the scene) then no need to wast ammo. Secure the area and rehoster and dial 911.
I agree. However, I cannot deny there are many people, including some instructors, who say a CH licensee should not present their sidearm unless they intend to shoot and are legally justified in shooting.gigag04 wrote:When you pull that gun, and when you pull the trigger are two very different but equally important events.
As I understand the law, one may be able draw on someone who is simply assulting the CHLer as threat of use of deadly force. (no deadly wepon presented by the agressor). Hower, if the threat of use of deadly force failed to deter the aggressor, shooting the agressor would be dicy at best, and would place the CHLer in big legal trouble. It is the case, since simple assult does not justify the use of deadly force ( shooting the bad guy). However, Robbery and Aggrevate Robbery do justify the use of deadly force.apostate wrote:I agree. However, I cannot deny there are many people, including some instructors, who say a CH licensee should not present their sidearm unless they intend to shoot and are legally justified in shooting.gigag04 wrote:When you pull that gun, and when you pull the trigger are two very different but equally important events.
Beiruty wrote:As I understand the law, one may be able draw on someone who is simply assulting the CHLer as threat of use of deadly force. (no deadly wepon presented by the agressor). Hower, if the threat of use of deadly force failed to deter the aggressor, shooting the agressor would be dicy at best, and would place the CHLer in big legal trouble. It is the case, since simple assult does not justify the use of deadly force ( shooting the bad guy). However, Robbery and Aggrevate Robbery do justify the use of deadly force.apostate wrote:I agree. However, I cannot deny there are many people, including some instructors, who say a CH licensee should not present their sidearm unless they intend to shoot and are legally justified in shooting.gigag04 wrote:When you pull that gun, and when you pull the trigger are two very different but equally important events.
The Annoyed man, disagree with my analysis, since he consdiers fist-fight a potentionaly deadly threat.
Like simple robbery, kidnapping, etc.... as in the law....there are several crimes against which deadly force is justified that do not even require a deadly weapon being used by the agressor...
Beiruty wrote:Like simple robbery, kidnapping, etc.... as in the law....there are several crimes against which deadly force is justified that do not even require a deadly weapon being used by the agressor...
The same verb tense study can be applied to 9.32 as well. If the actor abandons the encounter, you will have some 'spraining to do. This is not "my opinion" it's how the text reads. FWIW, I feel I am more than qualified to opine on how the penal code gets applied by Texas LEOs.Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
{Burglary or Kidnapping in progress} or...
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
If "the deed is done" then you're talking about arrest, not preventing the crime. Obviously, it's different with kidnapping if they still have the victim, but in that situation the crime is in progress which is different than escaping afterward.speedsix wrote:...the deed is done once the elements of those crimes have been met...you're not talking about changing his mind and abandoning an encounter...you're talking about escaping after committing a crime...
Yeah, but there's plenty of time between when you begin drawing your gun and when you have it on-target. In this intervening period, new information may cause you to change your mind. It's not like the law says "if your hand touches your gun you are REQUIRED to shoot at least three people" or anything...apostate wrote:I agree. However, I cannot deny there are many people, including some instructors, who say a CH licensee should not present their sidearm unless they intend to shoot and are legally justified in shooting.gigag04 wrote:When you pull that gun, and when you pull the trigger are two very different but equally important events.
...PC9:31 and 9:32 don't mention any fleeing felon rule...nor arrest...but since you bring that up...do you really believe we're justified in using deadly force to recover property involved in two of the crimes mentioned, robbery or aggravated robbery...and yet not justified in using deadly force in preventing the escape of someone who has just committed or was in commission of the crimes listed in 9:32(a)(2)(B)?apostate wrote:If "the deed is done" then you're talking about arrest, not preventing the crime. I don't believe the fleeing felon rule is in effect these days.