TexasCHLforum.com

Ruark wrote:But this does raise an interesting question, one that I've thought of frequently. When can you assume that using deadly force is justified BEFORE any shots are fired? Say you're sitting in the Food Court in a mall and you see some creepy-looking guy raising a 1911. Or you're at an office Christmas party in San Bernardino and one of your coworkers walks in holding an AR. Are you going to whip out your Glock and start blasting?

The incident in San Bernardino took place in a government facility. By California law, those places are off-limits to firearms, even those who have concealed carry licenses. So, that would be a big red alert flag, but no one there would be able to do anything about it using a firearm because the law-abiding types would have left them locked in their vehicle, unloaded, per California law.

Now, as to someone raising a 1911 in the mall at the Food Court, why would a CHLer have their firearm out in a situation like that? That would raise the red flag, and I'd personally be looking for cover as fast as I could. If it turned out to be nothing, then no big deal, I just look silly. If it was something bad, cover is a good thing.

No one raising a 1911 in a crowded food court is about to do a good deed. Furthermore, someone walking into a christmas party with an Ar-15 doesn't necessarily mean it's bad unless all firearms are prohibited there. However, there method of carry would be the determining factor. Is is strapped on there back with a sling or are they at the ready or aiming down the sights. Context is key here.

Ruark wrote:But this does raise an interesting question, one that I've thought of frequently. When can you assume that using deadly force is justified BEFORE any shots are fired? Say you're sitting in the Food Court in a mall and you see some creepy-looking guy raising a 1911. Or you're at an office Christmas party in San Bernardino and one of your coworkers walks in holding an AR. Are you going to whip out your Glock and start blasting?

Until you see someone shoot at another human being, you have no idea what their intentions are. It could be any number of things, none of which would justify the use of force. As TAM pointed out, your weapon is for defensive use, not offense. That is the job of the police. If the shooting starts, and you can take a clear shot without endangering other lives, or it's clear that NOT shooting will endanger other lives, THEN you shoot. And you keep shooting until he stops moving. But you had better have surveyed the area for accomplices first, because you will be the next to go down if you haven't and there is one or more.

The short answer is, unless you've trained for this often, stay out of it unless you are directly in danger.

THIS is what I love about this forum. Folks took a topic that was perhaps trolling, but even if not, was something unusual, and turned it into a serious discussion. Good stuff.

I think I would fall back on my continum of force training from the military/LE/CO - if the guy is pointing the gun at me - all bets are off - if the guy is waiving it in my direction all bets are off - if the guy is waiving/pointing it at another person all bets are off - if the guy is shooting at anybody or anything all bets are off - I may go to the Grand Jury but I am pretty sure I could articulate why I shot at the person - f it is slung or even in the low ready position - no way I am gonna shoot them

baldeagle wrote: Until you see someone shoot at another human being, you have no idea what their intentions are. It could be any number of things, none of which would justify the use of force. As TAM pointed out, your weapon is for defensive use, not offense. That is the job of the police. If the shooting starts, and you can take a clear shot without endangering other lives, or it's clear that NOT shooting will endanger other lives, THEN you shoot.

Yep. Wait for the police to handle it. They'll be riiiiiiiiiiiiight there inaminnit....

Seriously, though, the crux is another perspective: that you're supposed to wait for an innocent person to die.. a child, a pregnant mother with 3 kids, a father.... and THEN you're justified in shooting. Somebody's paying a very high price for you to make that decision. I'm not necessarily saying you should start blasting the instant the BG's gun comes up; I'm just pointing at the other side of the coin. You can clearly see the issues connected to firing immediately, but at the same time, there's something fundamentally wrong with saying, in so many words, "I'm going to wait until he kills somebody, then decide...." Something of a moral quandary, I would think.

If I ever draw my weapon with the intent to use it, law be damned, I'm going to shoot with conviction and righteousness. I believe the rest will work itself out.

Someone raises their weapon and I honestly believe their intent is to start shooting, I wouldn't think twice about using force to save my life or others. I guess in the situation of a crowded mall, I would be more worried about missing and hitting someone other then my target.

I was watching the local 4:00 o'clock news and they showed an armed robbery at a Starbucks. The guy was well dressed with a hand gun (finger off the trigger) he was calm. In that situation in not sure if anyone's life was threatened. What would you do?

Richbirdhunter wrote:I was watching the local 4:00 o'clock news and they showed an armed robbery at a Starbucks. The guy was well dressed with a hand gun (finger off the trigger) he was calm. In that situation in not sure if anyone's life was threatened. What would you do?

Are you kidding? You want to wait for him to pull the trigger? If a CHL had a shot, they should take his well dressed head off.

I'd rather not splatter blood and brains all over the place, if at all possible

I was going to answer this, but I think it is smarter not to post this kind of stuff. If something ever did happen, I don't want some prosecuter throwing my answer in my face. I don't think it would happen considering I live in the Hill Country and not Austin , but why take a chance?

ScottDLS wrote:

Richbirdhunter wrote:I was watching the local 4:00 o'clock news and they showed an armed robbery at a Starbucks. The guy was well dressed with a hand gun (finger off the trigger) he was calm. In that situation in not sure if anyone's life was threatened. What would you do?

Are you kidding? You want to wait for him to pull the trigger? If a CHL had a shot, they should take his well dressed head off.

I understand your line of thinking, but from what I saw he wanted the money and that's it. There's no right answer I just don't know if it was a defend life situation.

Ruark wrote:

baldeagle wrote: Until you see someone shoot at another human being, you have no idea what their intentions are. It could be any number of things, none of which would justify the use of force. As TAM pointed out, your weapon is for defensive use, not offense. That is the job of the police. If the shooting starts, and you can take a clear shot without endangering other lives, or it's clear that NOT shooting will endanger other lives, THEN you shoot.

Yep. Wait for the police to handle it. They'll be riiiiiiiiiiiiight there inaminnit....

Seriously, though, the crux is another perspective: that you're supposed to wait for an innocent person to die.. a child, a pregnant mother with 3 kids, a father.... and THEN you're justified in shooting. Somebody's paying a very high price for you to make that decision. I'm not necessarily saying you should start blasting the instant the BG's gun comes up; I'm just pointing at the other side of the coin. You can clearly see the issues connected to firing immediately, but at the same time, there's something fundamentally wrong with saying, in so many words, "I'm going to wait until he kills somebody, then decide...." Something of a moral quandary, I would think.

With the exception of your first derogatory take on my comments, your thoughts get to the heart of the dilemma. To use lethal force, you have to be certain it is required. A lot of information that can't be detailed here will go into that decision. And you, if you shoot, will have to live with the consequences. Like I said, until he shoots, you don't know what his intentions are. If you shoot him before he shoots, you'd better hope that he really was intending to kill people. What if he was an OCT idiot shooting blanks to make a point? What if the gun isn't loaded?

Police have to live with those decisions all the time. But CHL holders don't have the burden of being required to come to another's defense. Therefore your decision to shoot will be weighed differently, and you will have to explain why you felt the need to shoot. Your perception of the threat had better be that of a responsible man, or you just might end up convicted of a felony crime. No one can make that decision for you, and there's no way a formula can be produced that will be correct for every circumstance.

I know what I will do and what I won't do. That's good enough for me, and I can live with my decisions because they have been carefully thought through.

It is aggravated robbery. How can you tell if he has blanks, has a bb gun, is unloaded, etc?