TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote: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

Drawing a weapon is not a use of force. Pointing a weapon at a person is a different story.

seamusTX wrote: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.

It all boils down to the definition of serious bodily injury yet again; 9.01 states "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.

Six-on-one is a bit excessive if you're just trying to give somebody a bloody nose, and if the victim fails to assume they intend more than simple bodily injury, there's likely to be no chance to do anything about it once they start swinging.

Odin wrote:Drawing a weapon is not a use of force. Pointing a weapon at a person is a different story.

As quoted on the previous page, displaying a weapon is justified when the use of force is justified.

If the use of force is not justified, then neither is displaying a weapon (unless you are on your own property).

One Texas CHL holder was succesfully prosecuted for failure to conceal and lost when he drew in a road-rage incident, because the use of force was not justified. The name escapes me now.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

Odin wrote:Drawing a weapon is not a use of force. Pointing a weapon at a person is a different story.

As quoted on the previous page, displaying a weapon is justified when the use of force is justified.

If the use of force is not justified, then neither is displaying a weapon (unless you are on your own property).

One Texas CHL holder was succesfully prosecuted for failure to conceal and lost when he drew in a road-rage incident, because the use of force was not justified. The name escapes me now.

- Jim

Michael McDermott

There is a long thread on it here http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... &sk=t&sd=a

seamusTX wrote:

Odin wrote:Drawing a weapon is not a use of force. Pointing a weapon at a person is a different story.

As quoted on the previous page, displaying a weapon is justified when the use of force is justified.

If the use of force is not justified, then neither is displaying a weapon (unless you are on your own property).

One Texas CHL holder was succesfully prosecuted for failure to conceal and lost when he drew in a road-rage incident, because the use of force was not justified. The name escapes me now.

- Jim

True, anything can happen once it reaches the courts. But failure to conceal is a misdemeanor, and if a peace officer doesn't observe the offense, no shots are fired, and nobody alleges that a weapon was pointed at anyone then chances are good that no charge will be filed. Again, as you pointed out anything can happen.

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

Yep. You are absolutely right. In CS the women do not worry but the livestock do.

Anygunanywhere.

seamusTX wrote: You're talking about Travis County,

The real problem here is that eventually the authorities would find out that he is an Aggie (in Longhorn territory).


Aggie,

Seriously, I think did you fine....and I applaud you for quickly coming to the aid of the young ladies.

Sometimes what is "lawful" and what "needs to be done" right away can get a bit fuzzy.

A subtle suggestion that you are armed might be just the ticket in one circumstance...or land you in jail in another. In this case...I think you were pretty safe if you had done the former.

From a purely tactical standpoint...I would have you "gather" the ladies close by, have them call 911 immediately....and don't allow yourself to be flanked.

Advancement, verbal provocation, flanking, circling and posturing... are all tell-tale signs of impending danger. At the least...be ready at this point.

I believe you did well by simply standing up to them and sternly telling them to leave.

Good job.

Flint.

Thanks y'all this has been a big help. I appreciate the advice.

I would also like to add that 6th street was a lot of fun. There's some cool stuff that goes on down there.

I liked Pete's Piano Bar. What a riot!

"Under the defense of necessity, conduct [displaying a weapon] is justified if: (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct.."

I think the OPs situation clearly passes this test

This is a good example of why more women should get a CHL and carry a handgun.

Add in the fact that I think it's very unlikely a DA, even in Austin, is going to do anything to a woman who points a gun at a group of men she thought might rape her.

Is the OP female?

Rex B wrote:Is the OP female?

No but the two he was defending are.

It sound like FightingAggieCHL is a male. I certainly read it that way.

I want to point out in response to the previous messages that the thugs were probably not doing anything more illegal than disorder conduct and jaywalking. They were making rude, suggestive comments to the women, and then insulting comments to FightingAggieCHL when he came to the ladies' defense. It doesn't say that they explicitly threatened anyone.

BTW, this kind of behavior goes on all the time in places like 6th Street, Bourbon Street, etc.

- Jim

aardwolf wrote:This is a good example of why more women should get a CHL and carry a handgun.

Add in the fact that I think it's very unlikely a DA, even in Austin, is going to do anything to a woman who points a gun at a group of men she thought might rape her.

Well......you don't know Ronnie Earle then.

The good news is: He isn't running again...from what I hear.