TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks troglodyte, let us know when you hear something more!

Well......church was not enlightening, at least as far as this topic is concerned. More heresay but no reliable information and my "sources" didn't confirm any previous heresay, so pretty much a bust. We appear to have reached the point of hearing it from my brother's girlfriend's dad's uncle type of information now.

I guess we will know in all good time. I'll keep my ear to the ground.

Russell wrote:Let's add a little fun into this just for the heck of it.

Let's not.

We have plenty of threads out there for hypothetical situations. None of them ever amount to anything except endless "what if" possibilities.

What we have here, is a real case that doesn't need more hypothetical speculation.

KBCraig wrote:

Russell wrote:Let's add a little fun into this just for the heck of it.

Let's not.

We have plenty of threads out there for hypothetical situations. None of them ever amount to anything except endless "what if" possibilities.

What we have here, is a real case that doesn't need more hypothetical speculation.

Found another video from KLBK that was good information, including an interview with a DPS officer.
http://everythinglubbock.com/media_play ... a_id=34371" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; on this. The reporter even makes a good statement on use of deadly force at the end.

Russell wrote:I thought it was a good scenario to talk about.

I'm sorry you don't agree

There's nothing wrong with your hypothetical, but please start it as a separate thread. We should keep this thread narrowly on this incident as we will probably have more updates as this case either progresses through the system, or gets dismissed.

Chas.

Keith B wrote:The reporter even makes a good statement on use of deadly force at the end.

That statement at the end, referencing a disparity of force, is the only thing close to accurate in that whole report.

They opened the whole story saying that a CHL holder cannot draw their gun unless they are in fear for their life, which is patently false. Then the DPS officer they interview reinforces the same falsehood. Then the DPS guy refers to someone "cussing you out", well this is not the issue here. The CHL holder was assaulted, and filed assault charges!

Of course I don't expect a 30-second news segment to cover the bases on what constitutes justification to use the threat of deadly force, especially since even with dozens of CHL holders armed with the statues, we still debate this for months on end on this very forum. However, like I said before, since the guy didn't actually shoot someone. The justification for the use of deadly force does not apply.

As usual, man with gun = bad guy.

End of story.

Yeah, I should have said 'threat of use of deadly force.' Bad wording on my part.

The problem is, this is the way a lot of folks think, and in turn, it can kill you in court. Just look at the McDermott case and you will see why someone can be found guilty by threatening the use, even if they may have been legally justified. Here is a link to an old thread on that issue in case you are not familiar with it http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... &sk=t&sd=a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Charles eluded to it earlier in this thread.

Overall, it is going to be up to the courts and how the lawyers try and prove this guy was justified in his actions. Without all the facts, knowing how they will argue the case, and how a Judge and/or jury will react, it's just speculation.

Some of the comments in this thread make me wonder if I have the wrong understanding of disparity of force.

I had understood it to mean I could respond in kind to the attack. So being shoved or pushed did not equal pulling gun. I also had the idea that circumstances also dictated level of force. In a situation such as this, where we all basicly know each other, casually or otherwise, I would have a harder time proving I had reason to fear for my life. Unless I had history with the attacker threatening to harm me in the past, why would I have reason to believe I was in emminate danger of grievous bodily harm?

All that being said....wouldn't the circumstances of this situation point towards the CHL holder over reacting just a bit? Wouldn't this be considered by the law in determining action to take?

I have an opinion like others, about this situation, that has no legal reasoning. It is that I would never pull my weapon on someone over such a silly issue as this. But then again, I wouldn't have acted like a fool to the coach in the first place so it is unlikely I would have to make such a choice.

Keith B wrote:Found another video from KLBK that was good information, including an interview with a DPS officer.
http://everythinglubbock.com/media_play ... a_id=34371" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; on this. The reporter even makes a good statement on use of deadly force at the end.

This is getting more interesting. The DPS Trooper's statement leads one to believe the only reason the man pulled a gun was because he was being cursed. However, the reporter indicated he was shoved.

This gets squarely into TPC §9.04. Under that code section, you can threaten deadly force if you are justified in using force, even if you would not be justified in using deadly force. However, being justified in using some force is only one element of the test. According to TPC §9.31, one can only use force (including the threat of force) "when and to the decree [you] reasonably believe the force is immediately necessary to protect" you from the other person's unlawful use of force.

So the question of whether he was justified in pulling his gun has two prongs. First, was he justified in using any force under TPC §9.04 in response to being shoved (I believe he was); and secondly, was the degree of force used by the CHL "reasonable." In my view, the second prong of the test is open to question, which is why he was arrested and charged.

The rationale behind TPC §9.04 allowing people to threaten deadly force even before they would be justified in actually using deadly force is the desire to empower people to diffuse a situation before someone gets killed. This can be seen in the language of TPC §9.04, where it reads, "as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary . . ." Implicit in this phrase is a reasonable belief that the confrontation could escalate to the point where deadly force would be justified if allowed to continue. Whether the CHL reasonably believed this will be based upon all of the factors we've discussed in numerous threads and concerning which we have no information at this point.

Please note, it is critical in this analysis to understand that, under the Texas Penal Code, threatening force is not merely a threat to act in the future, is the actual use of force even though no physical contact occurs.

The reporters and the Trooper said that you can only pull a gun if you were in fear for your life, which implies that one must believe that the use of deadly force is justified at that point. This is not what DPS teaches CHL Instructors. It is a conservative approach intended to keep people from being in this man's shoes. I disagree with not being fully candid about Texas law, but I certainly understand the desire to keep CHLs from having problems. This is why I sometimes cringe when teaching TPC §9.42(2)(A) that deals with criminal mischief at night being justification for the use of deadly force. I teach the law as it is, but we also discuss the ramifications of relying upon that justification.

Chas.

TPC §9.31 wrote:§ 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.

TPC §9.04 wrote:§ 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

Charles,

Since we are discussing this, how big a factor do you feel the provocation aspect in § 9.31 and 9.32 play into it? It clearly stated that Burke started the altercation by yelling at the coach, but then the husband stepped in and the verbal sparing went on, up to the point of the husband shoving Burke. Conflict resolution skills were definitely not in play during this incident.

Keith B wrote:Charles,

Since we are discussing this, how big a factor do you feel the provocation aspect in § 9.31 and 9.32 play into it?

I honestly don't know. So much will depend upon who said what, the "outlook" of the community, and other factors that have absolutely nothing to do with Penal Code. Unfortunately, a full discussion of this issue would be way too long for a post!

I'm giving a seminar at PSC on Nov. 14th but it's already full. I wasn't going to announce this for another few days, but the organization I first discussed in May is about to become active. Depending upon the support it receives, the Texas Self-Defense & Deadly Force Laws Seminar, along with several other seminars on various topics, may well be available in many locations throughout the State. Since I've let the cat out of the bag early, I'll post something in another thread.

Chas.

Keith,

The thing is, yelling at the coach does not justify an assault response from a third party, even if that third party is the coach's husband. The third party intervened and used force to stop someone yelling at his wife.

IMHO, and it is just that, an opinion, the husband did the escalating.

Also IMHO, the threat of deadly force in this case quickly de-escalated the situation that was obviously headed in a violent direction.

I initially wrote a much longer response but I'll wait on it.

I think the whole purpose of the threat of deadly force instead of the use of force is to de-escalate the situation, and in this case, it worked. The question that remains is, how high do you have to allow a situation to be escalated before you are justified in using this tool to de-escalate it?

And BTW I don't think that McDermott case is similar at all, since there was no actual physical assault.