Although I agree with your overall warning that deadly force should not be used lightly, I think you overstate the risk when you point to the Harold Fish and Jerome Ersland cases. The Fish matter was an aberration, especially in Arizona, and it resulted in a change of state law to prevent it from reoccurring. The short version of the facts are that he fired a warning shot a the dead man's dogs, was attacked by an unarmed man with a history of violence, and he shot the man five times. His conviction was overturned and he was not retried because of the passage of the Arizona version of the "Castle Doctrine" more accurately termed a "True Man Doctrine."
Mr. Ersland didn't merely use deadly force against an unarmed robber in his pharmacy, he shot him in the head, ran out of the store after the robber's partner, then returned to the store and shot the first robber five more times in the back. I'm not saying the additional five rounds were not justified, but that fact pattern is certainly going to raise questions. I discuss precisely this fact pattern in my CHL classes and in my
Texas Self-Defense & Deadly Force Laws Seminar.
I also strongly agree with your recommendation to decide now what it will take for you to use deadly force. As I say in my seminars and classes, "draw your line in the sand today." If you wait until you have only a split second to make a decision and you are forced to do so when you are likely to be terrified, you won't be up to the task.
As for lawyers, . . . way less than half of Texas Senators and House Members are lawyers so your argument about laws being written for lawyers to make money is dead wrong. Plus, anyone who says the State of Texas is friendly to lawyers hasn't been following Texas legislative sessions since 1995.
Chas.
drjoker wrote:The law is purposely vague in order to keep attorneys in business. In order to get a concrete answer, it would help to ask a question that is not vague. Your question is vague, "... are there any previous post from people that give a more cut and dried straightforward list of the laws." Wow, you want several years of law school in a "cut and dried straightforward list". No, it is NEVER "cut and dried" when you shoot someone. I am NOT a lawyer, but my best advice to you is to practice restraint. As I've been explaining to my wife and female friend who are currently taking CHL classes, your CHL is a license to carry a deadly weapon for the purpose of defense from imminent and immediate deadly force. It is not a license to be Batman, a hero, a vigilante, a security guard, a cop, judge, jury, and executioner. Why should you practice restraint? Well, death is irreversible so if you make a mistake, you cannot correct your mistake. Therefore, if you use deadly force, you have to be 100% sure that you're doing the right thing.
Under a deadly force situation, you are under high stress and you don't have the luxury of carefully thinking things through. Hindsight is always 20/20 and juries have the luxury of sitting in their comfortable armchairs to make their judgements in safety. Therefore, it helps to have a very simple rule to follow that requires ZERO thinking when you are in a deadly force situation. My personal rule of thumb is to wait until I see a gun or knife before I make my move. There are advantages and disadvantages to this rule. The advantage is that it will make the shooting more "cut and dried" rather than vague. For example, if you saw a BG start to pull something that you suspect was a weapon out of his/her pocket and it turns out to be a cell phone, how are you going to explain that to the D.A. if you shot the BG? But don't take my word for it. I invite you to use the search feature on this website and look for Harold Fish, Jerome Ersland (one thug was armed, but the guy he shot wasn't), Paul Saustrup, Louis Fuentes, etc. The list goes on and on. Many of the self-defense shooters who got in trouble shot an unarmed assailant. No matter how justified, shooting an unarmed assailant is always NOT "cut and dried." That's why I carry pepper spray AND a gun. Therefore, if force is justified but not deadly force, I would not be left with only a deadly weapon for the job. However, waiting for a gun or knife to appear before making your move is a tactical disadvantage. My personal rule of thumb (never shoot an unarmed man) puts me at a moral/legal advantage but a tactical disadvantage. If you disagree with my rule of thumb, fine, but make sure you come up with your own easy rule of thumb because trying to make complicated decisions in a hurry while someone is trying to kill you will only cause you to freeze up and do nothing. In an emergency situation, people either tend to fight, run, or freeze.
For example this happened to me when I was in Austin on business with my dad; I was in an elevator and some drunken muscle head twice my size throws a punch at me but I dodge it. "What're yew lookin' at?" he slurred. "Nothing, sir," I replied. Wham! He takes another punch at me but I dodge it. "I don't like the way yew're lookin' at me! Ya wanna die?" he fumbled. "I apologize, sir," I replied. He starts to pull something out of his hoodie pocket with his hand. My hand is already inside my pants, wrapped around the gun. It is halfway out of the holster already, but still concealed. My eyeballs are superglued to his hand. Dink! The elevator door opens and he suddenly pulls out a... cell phone. I leave quickly. Would I have been justified in shooting him? Yes. Would I end up with over $100k in legal bills and end up in jail like Harold Fish? Probably. That was a particularly bad situation because it was a small enclosed elevator so I couldn't even use pepper spray.
In conclusion, make up a "cut and dried" rule for yourself to follow. Although the law is never "cut and dried", your personal rule can be. If you do not have a simple rule to follow in an emergency situation, you could end up freezing and doing nothing. Everyone has a different personal rule. I will only use deadly force if I see a gun or knife. My wife will run away from everything. One of my female friends will yield to thugs unless it is rape. My Indian doctor friend will yield to thugs because defending yourself will put a thug's life in danger and all life is sacred. My liberal co-worker friend says that guns are evil instruments that are only meant to kill so he will deal with any threat only with his fists. My security guard friend talks tough and says that he'll beat up and/or shoot all thugs, but I suspect that he'll probably run faster than my wife. So, come up with your own simple rule of thumb, but I suggest that your rule of thumb incorporates some restraint.
Note: I am NOT a lawyer.
I don't recall seeing a lot of bad information.
Decisions last a lifetime, make the right one, feel good with the decision you made. 