From prone to standing in 1 second or less

[Pawpaw]

I'm starting to questing everything our instructor taught us...

Congratulations! Now you're learning.

Question everything about this subject, including what you read on this forum. The great thing about this forum is not that we know everything (we don't). It's the free exchange of ideas and hearing answers from many different perspectives.

[mojo84]

as a civilian, if I find a situation warrants me to draw my weapon, I intend to use it. I may put my hand on my weapon and verbally warn the assailant to stop and back up or drop his knife or whatever the situation may be...but if that doesn't work and I end up drawing my weapon I intend to use it. but still the article is full of good info.

This is your call and you may be legally justified in doing so.

Research going back to the 1970s and updated at least twice indicate that citizens use firearms in self-defense anywhere from 1.5 million to 2.5 million times annually. The vast majority of the time, no shots are fired. It is the rare criminal indeed that will ignore the bore of a firearm and continue with an attack. They exist, but they are the exception not the rule.

Holding an attacker at gunpoint can still be necessary, even if you do shoot. Once the threat is over, your justification to use deadly force no longer exists. If your now-wounded attacker is still alive, then you have to deal with a possible counter-attack.

Aside from legality, I don't want to try to sleep knowing I legally killed someone when I could have simply diffused the situation by displaying my handgun. There's a reason Texas law has Tex. Penal Code §9.04 available.

Again, it's your call and all of us have to make those decisions based upon our training and experience.

Chas.

Sec. 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.
I'm starting to questing everything our instructor taught us... he said that (scenario time) if someone comes to your door rings your door bell and has a baseball bat in his hand and says "im gonna bash your brain in!" that would constitute as justified threat. but according to the highlighted areas, that's not the case?

Here's an example. Generally speaking, if the guy comes to your door with a bat and threatens you, you are justified in pulling your gun. If you pull your gun and he drops the bat or backs off, you would not be justified in shooting him. On the other hand, if he is close to you and he makes a furtive move that makes it appear he is following through on his threat with an attack, you would be justified in using deadly force. If you can get your point across and difuse the situation without pulling your gun, even better.

There are variables and nuances that can be added to the above that will affect your decisions but it gives you the general idea. The point being, there scenarios when it is justifiable and effective to pull your gun in an effort to make the potential threat realize he is at risk of being shot and he has a decision to make.

A common theme between what we are talking about and the ok is distance and quick decisions are critical.

[Keith B]

Sec. 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.
I'm starting to questing everything our instructor taught us... he said that (scenario time) if someone comes to your door rings your door bell and has a baseball bat in his hand and says "im gonna bash your brain in!" that would constitute as justified threat. but according to the highlighted areas, that's not the case?

You are trying to paraphrase the statute. In the case someone comes to your door with a bat, and they are the instigator, then the threat of use of force by them is NOT justified by by the chapter to begin with. However, you have justification in using the threat of force, or deadly force (gun drawn) to stop them from their threat to cause death or serious bodily injury.

[Grundy1133]

Sec. 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.
I'm starting to questing everything our instructor taught us... he said that (scenario time) if someone comes to your door rings your door bell and has a baseball bat in his hand and says "im gonna bash your brain in!" that would constitute as justified threat. but according to the highlighted areas, that's not the case?

You are trying to paraphrase the statute. In the case someone comes to your door with a bat, and they are the instigator, then the threat of use of force by them is NOT justified by by the chapter to begin with. However, you have justification in using the threat of force, or deadly force (gun drawn) to stop them from their threat to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Seems to be such a gray area... which is understandable i suppose considering there are an infinite number of possible scenarios and you cant make rules for each individual one.

[Mike S]

as a civilian, if I find a situation warrants me to draw my weapon, I intend to use it. I may put my hand on my weapon and verbally warn the assailant to stop and back up or drop his knife or whatever the situation may be...but if that doesn't work and I end up drawing my weapon I intend to use it. but still the article is full of good info.

This is your call and you may be legally justified in doing so.

Research going back to the 1970s and updated at least twice indicate that citizens use firearms in self-defense anywhere from 1.5 million to 2.5 million times annually. The vast majority of the time, no shots are fired. It is the rare criminal indeed that will ignore the bore of a firearm and continue with an attack. They exist, but they are the exception not the rule.

Holding an attacker at gunpoint can still be necessary, even if you do shoot. Once the threat is over, your justification to use deadly force no longer exists. If your now-wounded attacker is still alive, then you have to deal with a possible counter-attack.

Aside from legality, I don't want to try to sleep knowing I legally killed someone when I could have simply diffused the situation by displaying my handgun. There's a reason Texas law has Tex. Penal Code §9.04 available.

Again, it's your call and all of us have to make those decisions based upon our training and experience.

Chas.

Sec. 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.
I'm starting to questing everything our instructor taught us... he said that (scenario time) if someone comes to your door rings your door bell and has a baseball bat in his hand and says "im gonna bash your brain in!" that would constitute as justified threat. but according to the highlighted areas, that's not the case?

Grundy,
Just to make sure you're not misunderstanding 9.04:

- This allows you, the defender, to present YOUR weapon. Your intent must be to create apprehension in your attacker that you will use deadly force to defend if necessary. However, YOU MUST be already legally justified in using force at this point.

- It DOES NOT give someone a pass for presenting a weapon if they're not already justified in using force.

- In the example of the guy at the door with a baseball bat threatening to bash your head in, it is not his threat that is justified based on 9.04. If he's presenting a threat of serious bodily injury or death to you, & you reasonably believe it's necessary to immediately use deadly force to prevent him bashing your head in, then you are justified in using deadly force to prevent it. Since you are justified in using force, 9.04 says that if you stop short of actually discharging your firearm but merely present it with the intent of getting him to back off then your still covered under the justifications in Chapter 9. (If you present your firearm & tell him "Not Today!", and he departs but calls in a criminal complaint against YOU for pulling a gun on HIM, 9.04 provides you some protection).

Hopefully this helps clarify, & didn't just add more confusion.

ETA: Keith replied while I was trying to type coherently on my phone. This is the long winded version of what he said ∆

Also, I don't see this as a grey area. Chapter 9 is very specific in what is justified, & what is never justified. The grey areas (in my mind) would be what a prosecutor or jury might deem as 'reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary' if you're not defending against one of the 'presumed reasonable' offenses (murder, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated kidnapping, unlawfully with force entry into / removal from your home/vehicle/place of employment). I find it a blessing that Texas includes these within the statute.

[crazy2medic]

What I learned as a member of my city's tactical team as the team medic, tell the person to drop the weapon if they haven't already done so, have them back away from their weapon, tell them to turn around and face away from you, tell them to kneel, cross their legs at the ankles, place their hands on their head and interlace their fingers, advised them if they take their hands off their heads or uncross their legs you will shoot them! Never Approach them or place yourself close enough to be grabbed. By making them face away you can move around somewhat, if they decide to do anything they will have to uncross their legs, their hands will come their heads, they will have to turn to locate you and that buys you time!

[Keith B]

Sec. 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.
I'm starting to questing everything our instructor taught us... he said that (scenario time) if someone comes to your door rings your door bell and has a baseball bat in his hand and says "im gonna bash your brain in!" that would constitute as justified threat. but according to the highlighted areas, that's not the case?

You are trying to paraphrase the statute. In the case someone comes to your door with a bat, and they are the instigator, then the threat of use of force by them is NOT justified by by the chapter to begin with. However, you have justification in using the threat of force, or deadly force (gun drawn) to stop them from their threat to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Seems to be such a gray area... which is understandable i suppose considering there are an infinite number of possible scenarios and you cant make rules for each individual one.

Not grey at all. If the threat by the other is not justified, i.e. you did not do something to justify their use of force, then you have the justification to use force or deadly force to stop them from seriously hurting or killing you.

[Grundy1133]

Sec. 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.
I'm starting to questing everything our instructor taught us... he said that (scenario time) if someone comes to your door rings your door bell and has a baseball bat in his hand and says "im gonna bash your brain in!" that would constitute as justified threat. but according to the highlighted areas, that's not the case?

You are trying to paraphrase the statute. In the case someone comes to your door with a bat, and they are the instigator, then the threat of use of force by them is NOT justified by by the chapter to begin with. However, you have justification in using the threat of force, or deadly force (gun drawn) to stop them from their threat to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Seems to be such a gray area... which is understandable i suppose considering there are an infinite number of possible scenarios and you cant make rules for each individual one.

Not grey at all. If the threat by the other is not justified, i.e. you did not do something to justify their use of force, then you have the justification to use force or deadly force to stop them from seriously hurting or killing you.

I misunderstood the wording of it. It makes sense now. lol

[Keith B]

I misunderstood the wording of it. It makes sense now. lol

[Charles L. Cotton]

as a civilian, if I find a situation warrants me to draw my weapon, I intend to use it. I may put my hand on my weapon and verbally warn the assailant to stop and back up or drop his knife or whatever the situation may be...but if that doesn't work and I end up drawing my weapon I intend to use it. but still the article is full of good info.

This is your call and you may be legally justified in doing so.

Research going back to the 1970s and updated at least twice indicate that citizens use firearms in self-defense anywhere from 1.5 million to 2.5 million times annually. The vast majority of the time, no shots are fired. It is the rare criminal indeed that will ignore the bore of a firearm and continue with an attack. They exist, but they are the exception not the rule.

Holding an attacker at gunpoint can still be necessary, even if you do shoot. Once the threat is over, your justification to use deadly force no longer exists. If your now-wounded attacker is still alive, then you have to deal with a possible counter-attack.

Aside from legality, I don't want to try to sleep knowing I legally killed someone when I could have simply diffused the situation by displaying my handgun. There's a reason Texas law has Tex. Penal Code §9.04 available.

Again, it's your call and all of us have to make those decisions based upon our training and experience.

Chas.

Sec. 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.
I'm starting to questing everything our instructor taught us... he said that (scenario time) if someone comes to your door rings your door bell and has a baseball bat in his hand and says "im gonna bash your brain in!" that would constitute as justified threat. but according to the highlighted areas, that's not the case?

Your instructor was correct. Don't confuse TPC §9.04 with §§9.31 or 9.32. Section 9.04 allows a person to lawfully display the ability to use deadly force to deter someone from using unlawful force against you. This is what studies indicate happen between 1.5 and 2.5 million times annually.

If a person comes to your door armed with a club and states his intent to use unlawful deadly force against you, you clearly are justified in using deadly force pursuant to §§9.31 and 9.32. Your instructor was correct. Section 9.04 can only be used by a person acting lawfully and in your scenario, your potential attacker is acting unlawfully.

Chas.