Drawing to Equalize Force

[FightinAggieCHL]

I was wondering what the law said about the use of a firearm in the equalization of force. Here's why:

This past weekend, I went to Austin with some friends of mine. As always, I was carrying my weapon IWB. We went down to 6th Street to stay in a hotel. My friend needed to run down to the car to grab something out of the back, and 2 of the girls we were with needed to go to get some stuff out of there car. We went down stairs, my friend called for the Valet to pick up his vehicle, but the girls needed to go to the parking garage down the block, and across the street. We had all just been outside where they were walking to about 20 minutes before hand, and my friend needed help in carrying whatever it was back up to the room, so I decided to let the girls go on their own to their vehicle. I noticed something strange while they were walking down the ramp to the valet to the street though. There were 6 or 7 guys, early twenties standing around watching them and talking to each other. I could tell that they were checking them out (the girls were dressed for a night of clubbing), which is nothing out of the ordinary. The girls passed them and began walking around the corner... with the whole group of guys in tow, cat-calling and otherwise insulting them. I don't want to stereotype, but these guys didn't look like they were the most stand-up gentlemen, so I told my buddy that "I need[ed] to go, RIGHT NOW." I took off down the ramp after the girls to find them bookin it across the street with all of the guys forming an arc from sidewalk to sidewalk around them. It looked weird, so I yelled for the girls to stop and caught up with them. The cat-calling became more graphic, but with the addition of insults towards me. I got in front of the girls, took an aggressive posture, pointed to an alley, and told the guys to get lost in a stern tone. The lead guy sort of looked at me, flipped me the bird and brought his crew to an alley next to the hotel.

We were able to continue with our evening without incident after that.

This got me thinking. At what point would I have been allowed to draw? There were several of them, and they were all fairly sizeable guys. What does the law say about disparity of force? I honestly believe that the situation could have ended very badly if I hadn't run down after the girls, but I did not see any immediate threat of deadly force.

[seamusTX]

IMHO you handled the situation well.

Verbal provocation alone is never a justification for the use of force. Without a justification for the use of force, you cannot legally threaten the use of force. Therefore you cannot legally produce a weapon.

You're talking about Travis County, which is not exactly friendly territory for those who choose to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

- Jim

[FightinAggieCHL]

Ok, thanks for the advice.

If the guys had began to encircle around myself and the girls, would that have been justification? I'm just wondering where the line is drawn. If there is a mob of people versus one armed guy, and two unarmed/untrained girls, the odds are not good if they get in close and attack.

Either way, I'm glad that the situation was handled properly and no one was hurt.

[NcongruNt]

IMHO you handled the situation well.

Verbal provocation alone is never a justification for the use of force. Without a justification for the use of force, you cannot legally threaten the use of force. Therefore you cannot legally produce a weapon.

You're talking about Travis County, which is not exactly friendly territory for those who choose to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

- Jim

I don't think you give us enough credit. I myself have been surprised at the people I know who are not only accepting and respectful of other people's choice in owning and becoming proficient with firearms, but at the people I never figured for a pro-2A gun owner and shooter.

Also, I've always had good interactions with APD as a CHLer.

[casingpoint]

Aggie: No one "allows you to draw." It's up to you, and it is a very hard call to make. You were certainly confronted with potentially overwhelming force that was threatening. The close proximity of the potential attackers was highly indicative of the willingness to strike and consequently went beyond a mere verbal attack. The threat was real, and you were in the zone in which these things happen. Old Army would have shot just to be on the safe side, but Texas just ain't Texas anymore, especially on the judicial side, and the shoot could have well gone against you. As Gene Stallings would say, "You done good, boy."

[propellerhead]

You didn't get into much detail but from the surface it sounds like the deescalation part of the CHL class is working.

[nedmoore]

Any pics? of the girls? LOL! I think you handled it just fine, you kept it in your holster.

[FightinAggieCHL]

That's what I was thinking. I remember reading something on here about taking an aggressive physical stance (holding your arms up in a way as if to halt someone) and issuing a command of "back off." I did that, and it seemed to work well. They were close enough to cause an issue if someone decided to rush. I'm really glad I was armed, however. I think that this is just another instance of an assault, or worse, halted by civil action by someone who has undergone at least a little training.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Well done.

Whether or when to draw in a situation like that is a tough call. And "Castle Doctrine" or not, it's usually a good idea to try to move away from the threat (meaning you and the girls of course) if possible. I think that before things got physical, I might make a move putting my hand near the gun like I was getting ready to draw and hope that the BG's got the "message."

But I'm certainly no expert at stuff like this.

I'd say that in all, you did good.

[seamusTX]

I don't think you give us enough credit. I myself have been surprised at the people I know who are not only accepting and respectful of other people's choice in owning and becoming proficient with firearms, but at the people I never figured for a pro-2A gun owner and shooter.

Also, I've always had good interactions with APD as a CHLer.

I'm not trying to tar all of Travis County with the same brush, but I suspect that if someone draws in a crowd on Sixth Street that the situation is going to be sorted out at the police station.

- Jim

[dustyb]

There were 6 or 7 guys, early twenties ... with the whole group of guys in tow, cat-calling and otherwise insulting them. I don't want to stereotype, but these guys didn't look like they were the most stand-up gentlemen, so I told my buddy that "I need[ed] to go, RIGHT NOW." I took off down the ramp after the girls to find them bookin it across the street with all of the guys forming an arc from sidewalk to sidewalk around them. It looked weird, so I yelled for the girls to stop and caught up with them. The cat-calling became more graphic, but with the addition of insults towards me. I got in front of the girls, took an aggressive posture, pointed to an alley, and told the guys to get lost in a stern tone. The lead guy sort of looked at me, flipped me the bird and brought his crew to an alley next to the hotel.

bunch of t-sips. You wouldn't have had that problem in C.S.

[LedJedi]

IMHO you handled the situation well.

Verbal provocation alone is never a justification for the use of force. Without a justification for the use of force, you cannot legally threaten the use of force. Therefore you cannot legally produce a weapon.

You're talking about Travis County, which is not exactly friendly territory for those who choose to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.

- Jim

I don't know about that. A big guy starts walking up to me in a threatening way saying "i'm gonna mess you up." I think i'd be pretty justified in drawing down on him. I suppose that's not just verbal provocation though since in that scenario the guy would be walking toward you. I guess my point is folks don't have to actually hit you or come at you with a weapon to justify force.

[seamusTX]

Let's look at the relevant section of the penal code:

PC §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:...
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, ...
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

I have snipped the clauses that are irrelevant to this scenario.

If someone, or several people, say, "I'm [we're] going to kill you, and they advance on you, then IMHO you have a reasonable belief that they are going to use deadly force.

If they say things like, "I'm gonna kick your butt," then you're on less solid ground. Assault and aggravated assault are not on the list.

If they say that sort of thing and don't advance, and don't have weapons, as was the case in this scenario, IMHO the use of force is not justified.

My opinion isn't worth the paper that it isn't written on. The opinion that counts is that of the DA of the county that you are in.

- Jim

[LedJedi]

Let's look at the relevant section of the penal code:

PC §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:...
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, ...
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

I have snipped the clauses that are irrelevant to this scenario.

If someone, or several people, say, "I'm [we're] going to kill you, and they advance on you, then IMHO you have a reasonable belief that they are going to use deadly force.

If they say things like, "I'm gonna kick your butt," then you're on less solid ground. Assault and aggravated assault are not on the list.

If they say that sort of thing and don't advance, and don't have weapons, as was the case in this scenario, IMHO the use of force is not justified.

My opinion isn't worth the paper that it isn't written on. The opinion that counts is that of the DA of the county that you are in.

- Jim

+1

yep, that's pretty much what i was thinking too.