Spin Off from DF in response to assault

[SkipB]

Or the other party didn't want to presue it. We have to remember that there are guy's like that out there driving. We have all got to close following behind another car or pulled in front of another to close. And it has all happened to us also. That is just the way it is today. We don't go off like that guy did, but then he probably had a problem to start with and was already in a bad mood.

[seamusTX]

I would say that it's safe to assume that since his friend was never indicted that the DA decided that he hadn't violated any laws.

It means that the DA decided the case wasn't worth prosecuting. That could be because he thought no law was broken, or the violation was trivial and harmless, or he didn't have enough evidence.

There's no indictment process for misdemeanors. Misdemeanors are charged on the basis of something called an information.

- Jim

[Penn]

I would say that it's safe to assume that since his friend was never indicted that the DA decided that he hadn't violated any laws.

It means that the DA decided the case wasn't worth prosecuting. That could be because he thought no law was broken, or the violation was trivial and harmless, or he didn't have enough evidence.

There's no indictment process for misdemeanors. Misdemeanors are charged on the basis of something called an information.

- Jim

Okay that's fair, but - it sounds like a felony to me (ADW - do they have that in Texas?) if the DA wanted to pursue it that way. Evidence wise, it sounds like the "suspect" admitted to police that he brandished the gun. What other evidence did they need? Granted - the victim may have backed out

[seamusTX]

... it sounds like a felony to me (ADW - do they have that in Texas?)

Texas has an offense of deadly conduct. Pointing a firearm at someone is a felony.

In this case, the only offense would have been failure to conceal by a CHL holder, and there's no victim.

- Jim

[Penn]

... it sounds like a felony to me (ADW - do they have that in Texas?)

Texas has an offense of deadly conduct. Pointing a firearm at someone is a felony.

In this case, the only offense would have been failure to conceal by a CHL holder, and there's no victim.

- Jim

Okay, I think the guy was justified, but if the DA didn't - isn't it a felony to show someone a gun you're holding and say you're going to use it? Basically threatening someone with a deadly weapon.

[seamusTX]

Okay, I think the guy was justified, but if the DA didn't - isn't it a felony to show someone a gun you're holding and say you're going to use it? Basically threatening someone with a deadly weapon.

It would be if it weren't justified. I think in this case the DA decided that the man was sufficiently provoked and threatened.

I know of two cases like this where CHL holders were arrested. One was prosecuted, but the judge dismissed the case becase the charge was defective. I don't know what happened in the other one.

- Jim

[pt145ss]

... it sounds like a felony to me (ADW - do they have that in Texas?)

Texas has an offense of deadly conduct. Pointing a firearm at someone is a felony.

In this case, the only offense would have been failure to conceal by a CHL holder, and there's no victim.

- Jim

Okay, I think the guy was justified, but if the DA didn't - isn't it a felony to show someone a gun you're holding and say you're going to use it? Basically threatening someone with a deadly weapon.

Not sure if this has any relevance to your question or not:

§ 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.

[Penn]

... it sounds like a felony to me (ADW - do they have that in Texas?)

Texas has an offense of deadly conduct. Pointing a firearm at someone is a felony.

In this case, the only offense would have been failure to conceal by a CHL holder, and there's no victim.

- Jim

Okay, I think the guy was justified, but if the DA didn't - isn't it a felony to show someone a gun you're holding and say you're going to use it? Basically threatening someone with a deadly weapon.

Not sure if this has any relevance to your question or not:

§ 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.

It is relevant, but it is my opinion that he was justified. If the DA decided he wasn't justified then it would be a felony, right?

[seamusTX]

The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified

In this case, the use of force was not justified. The other person had not said or done anything overtly threatening.

I agree that a guy getting out of his car and approaching mine is threatening and provocative, but I don't think it's enough to justify the use or threat of force.

If the guy had said something like, "I'm going to kill you," he would have crossed the line.

This is all IMHO, of course.

- Jim

[Penn]

The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified

In this case, the use of force was not justified. The other person had not said or done anything overtly threatening.

I agree that a guy getting out of his car and approaching mine is threatening and provocative, but I don't think it's enough to justify the use or threat of force.

If the guy had said something like, "I'm going to kill you," he would have crossed the line.

This is all IMHO, of course.

- Jim

I think I'm missing your point, a couple posts up you stated "I think in this case the DA decided that the man was sufficiently provoked and threatened." Yet here you're saying that you think he wasn't justified. It sounds like you think the DA was wrong - or am I misinterpreting things?

[seamusTX]

... a couple posts up you staed "I think in this case the DA decided that the man was sufficiently provoked and threatened." Yet here you're saying that you think he wasn't justified. It sounds like you think the DA was wrong - or am I misinterpreting things?

I don't think the DA was wrong. He's a lawyer and I'm not. I think he looked at the facts and said, "No harm, no foul."

DAs have to consider a lot of things, including their caseload. They frequently choose not to prosecute when they could (particulalry with public intoxication).

I also think it's a bad idea to draw in a road-rage incident, because I know of cases where it has been prosecuted. I would hate to have someone conclude from the initial message in this thread that they would always get off easy.

- Jim

[Penn]

... a couple posts up you staed "I think in this case the DA decided that the man was sufficiently provoked and threatened." Yet here you're saying that you think he wasn't justified. It sounds like you think the DA was wrong - or am I misinterpreting things?

I don't think the DA was wrong. He's a lawyer and I'm not. I think he looked at the facts and said, "No harm, no foul."

DAs have to consider a lot of things, including their caseload. They frequently choose not to prosecute when they could (particulalry with public intoxication).

I also think it's a bad idea to draw in a road-rage incident, because I know of cases where it has been prosecuted. I would hate to have someone conclude from the initial message in this thread that they would always get off easy.

- Jim

I'm not trying to be an ass here, ( I respect your opinion and think that you're a valuable asset to the board) but you stated that you thought the DA came to the conclusion that the "suspect" was justified (not that he was using discretion in not prosecuting - which doesn't usually happen with felonies anyway) and then you subsequently stated that you thought the guy wasn't justified. Sounds like you're disagreeing with the DA.

[seamusTX]

I'm not making myself clear.

If someone draws a handgun when the use of force is not justified (according to Chapter 9 of the Penal Code), he is guilty of failure to conceal by a CHL holder, or unlawfully carrying a weapon, if he is not a CHL holder (both misdemeanors).

I think in this case, the man was not justified in the use of force or drawing a weapon.

I think the DA looked at the case, and decided not to prosecute because the man rightfully feared that an unlawful use of force was imminent. He didn't cause any harm. There would be no point in making his life miserable, and it would increase the DA's workload and further clog up the court.

I think the DA did the right thing in this case.

- Jim

[DoubleJ]

it is entirely conceivable that the guy was having brake problems and went to apologize.


do I think this is the case, no, but still....

the point is that, unless the guy has something in his hand (screwdriver, mallet, 12Gauge) that makes you *know* that he *is* going to do something, you should maybe keep your Gat to yourself.

I had a guy come up on my driver's side in my apt. parking lot. thought for sure he was going to "pull something"
I was ready, but didn't draw.
cracked my window, and the guy, very sheepishly, asked for a jumpstart.
turns out, guy didn't speak English real well, and was shy because of it.
got his car jumped off, and he went on his merry way.

just imagine if I'd have drawn down on that poor guy...

[pt145ss]

it is entirely conceivable that the guy was having brake problems and went to apologize.


do I think this is the case, no, but still....

the point is that, unless the guy has something in his hand (screwdriver, mallet, 12Gauge) that makes you *know* that he *is* going to do something, you should maybe keep your Gat to yourself.

I had a guy come up on my driver's side in my apt. parking lot. thought for sure he was going to "pull something"
I was ready, but didn't draw.
cracked my window, and the guy, very sheepishly, asked for a jumpstart.
turns out, guy didn't speak English real well, and was shy because of it.
got his car jumped off, and he went on his merry way.

just imagine if I'd have drawn down on that poor guy...

I agree, however, in the situation you described there was not any prior indication that something may be a miss. Not quite the same as the scenario as i described. My colleague pointed out that he could not see the aggressor’s hands and had no clue if he had a weapon or not.

Similar to that officer (the one running for office) not too long ago who had words with someone inside the stop n rob. The assailant went out to the truck and then came up from behind to the officer's window. In that case i assume the officer was able to see something in the assailant's hands. In this case my colleague was not able to see the hands. Had that officer not seen the guys hands he might just be dead today. Why take the chance when you can be prepared?