agreed. but to me, prepared and it being visible are two different things.
you could have it in hand, under your jacket, but ready to deploy.
and I think voicing that you have it could be considered a threat.
Spin Off from DF in response to assault
Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Penn your trying to say what he did wasn't a violation of a law. I think it was and just as Jim has explained it several times here. There could be many reasons the ADA didn't presue it. One could simply be that he to has a CHL, maybe the othe guy didn't want to presue it, ect. When a guy approaches your car in the manor described with just balled up fist then is time to manup, talk fast, or blow your horn at the guy in front of you tell he gets out of your way and the get the heck outta there.
One sticking point - it wasn't "balled up fists" it was hands that weren't visible. Very big distinction in my point of view. If he's purposefully hiding his hands, a reasonable person could expect that there is something in them.SkipB wrote:Penn your trying to say what he did wasn't a violation of a law. I think it was and just as Jim has explained it several times here. There could be many reasons the ADA didn't presue it. One could simply be that he to has a CHL, maybe the othe guy didn't want to presue it, ect. When a guy approaches your car in the manor described with just balled up fist then is time to manup, talk fast, or blow your horn at the guy in front of you tell he gets out of your way and the get the heck outta there.
Suppose you draw the gun or make it readily available without brandishing the weapon. Then the guy starts beating the heck out of your drivers window.
Similiar situation happened to me many years ago (like 35+ years). Guy was behind me stopped at a light in traffic. I happened to be in an un-airconditioned 1973 VW bug. I saw him get out and rolled up the window and just ignored the guy yelling at me. Then he started beating the heck on the window. To this day, I'm not sure how it did not break. Had it broken I'm pretty sure he would have wacked me pretty good in the face or dragged me from the car. Light turned green and I left him standing in the road.
Would that scenario change anything about use of DF?
Does anyone know when Charles is having another DF seminar?
Thanks
Similiar situation happened to me many years ago (like 35+ years). Guy was behind me stopped at a light in traffic. I happened to be in an un-airconditioned 1973 VW bug. I saw him get out and rolled up the window and just ignored the guy yelling at me. Then he started beating the heck on the window. To this day, I'm not sure how it did not break. Had it broken I'm pretty sure he would have wacked me pretty good in the face or dragged me from the car. Light turned green and I left him standing in the road.
Would that scenario change anything about use of DF?
Does anyone know when Charles is having another DF seminar?
Thanks
I think post castle doctrine...if the windows breaks...and maybe even just the attempt by pounding on the window (not sure about the pounding) but definitely if it breaks, then i would assume DF would be justified under the castle doctrine (forced entry into an occupied motor vehicle).lws380 wrote:Suppose you draw the gun or make it readily available without brandishing the weapon. Then the guy starts beating the heck out of your drivers window.
Similiar situation happened to me many years ago (like 35+ years). Guy was behind me stopped at a light in traffic. I happened to be in an un-airconditioned 1973 VW bug. I saw him get out and rolled up the window and just ignored the guy yelling at me. Then he started beating the heck on the window. To this day, I'm not sure how it did not break. Had it broken I'm pretty sure he would have wacked me pretty good in the face or dragged me from the car. Light turned green and I left him standing in the road.
Would that scenario change anything about use of DF?
Does anyone know when Charles is having another DF seminar?
Thanks
As for just pounding on the window one might be able to draw some comparisons to the musician who was shot in the head while pounding on the neighbor’s door. I think (please correct me if I’m wrong) the shooter was no billed.
However, i'm not a lawyer so I do not know for sure
-
FightinAggieCHL
- Member
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:20 am
- Location: College Station, TX
- Contact:
It might also depend on how big the guy is. If he looks like Hulk Hogan, and he's going to come grapple with you, you'd probably be able to justify drawing. Now if he's some little dude with a big ego, you might have more of a problem in justifying drawing on someone who is smaller than you, or even the same size as you, for that matter.
Since he was hiding his hands, and did not stop when your friend told him to, I think it was ok to announce that he had a weapon, and had it drawn. Who knows, maybe the dude approaching him had a knife in his hand and decided not to bring it to a possible gunfight. Your friend didn't draw ON him, your friend drew as a potential response to someone who may have had an intention to cause bodily harm.
Overall, I think it was a good call on the DA. No harm, no foul seems like a good path to have taken on this one.
Since he was hiding his hands, and did not stop when your friend told him to, I think it was ok to announce that he had a weapon, and had it drawn. Who knows, maybe the dude approaching him had a knife in his hand and decided not to bring it to a possible gunfight. Your friend didn't draw ON him, your friend drew as a potential response to someone who may have had an intention to cause bodily harm.
Overall, I think it was a good call on the DA. No harm, no foul seems like a good path to have taken on this one.
The right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
-
Charles L. Cotton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17788
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
- Contact:
I don't have one scheduled, but if there is enough interest I'll do one soon. I'll make a special effort to schedule it, if you folks willget the ladies in your lives to it. Preditors view the Christmas shopping season as "hunting" season!lws380 wrote:Does anyone know when Charles is having another DF seminar?
Thanks
Chas.
-
Charles L. Cotton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17788
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
- Location: Friendswood, TX
- Contact:
This is another great scenario to use in my NRA Personal Protection Courses and in CHL classes.
If you are justified in using force under TPC §9.31, then you are justified is threatening the use of force under TPC §9.04. If force is not justified, then you can't threaten to use force either. (Displaying a weapon constitutes a threat of force, per TPC §9.04)
As Txinvestigator said, merely walking up to your car doesn't justify using force, much less deadly force, so you woudn't be justified in threatening force by showing your pistol. If you can show there were more factors beside merely walking up to your car, then you may be able to establish a justification to use force, thus a justification to threaten force by producing a weapon. How much more you have to add to the mix to justify your actions will depend on a number of factors. I think both the LEO's and the ADA achieved the correct result with your friend. Sometimes such results are achieved by skillful application of legal principles, sometimes they are achieved by simply saying, "Did you see anything? Nope. Me neither."
I was pleasently surprised to see DPS teach threats of force under TPC §9.04 at CHL Instructor renewal school last week. While the Lt. didn't go into the detail we did in the thread on the scope of TPC §9.04, he did give an example of showing a pistol under circumstances that would fall within what we called the "broad view." (I have to credit txinvestigator and Kyle for a great thread and changing my opinion on this issue.)
Chas.
If you are justified in using force under TPC §9.31, then you are justified is threatening the use of force under TPC §9.04. If force is not justified, then you can't threaten to use force either. (Displaying a weapon constitutes a threat of force, per TPC §9.04)
As Txinvestigator said, merely walking up to your car doesn't justify using force, much less deadly force, so you woudn't be justified in threatening force by showing your pistol. If you can show there were more factors beside merely walking up to your car, then you may be able to establish a justification to use force, thus a justification to threaten force by producing a weapon. How much more you have to add to the mix to justify your actions will depend on a number of factors. I think both the LEO's and the ADA achieved the correct result with your friend. Sometimes such results are achieved by skillful application of legal principles, sometimes they are achieved by simply saying, "Did you see anything? Nope. Me neither."
I was pleasently surprised to see DPS teach threats of force under TPC §9.04 at CHL Instructor renewal school last week. While the Lt. didn't go into the detail we did in the thread on the scope of TPC §9.04, he did give an example of showing a pistol under circumstances that would fall within what we called the "broad view." (I have to credit txinvestigator and Kyle for a great thread and changing my opinion on this issue.)
Chas.
Very interesting situation with many good lessons.
First, and one I've seen Mas promote: Call the police immediately if you have to use your gun, either firing or not.
Second: Loose lips sink ships. I think every gun should have a roll of duct tape next to it.
Your friend would have been much better off not talking to the other driver. Generally speaking, any kind of communication with this type of person will escalate the situation.
Third: Carry your backup in a shoulder rig.
Fourth: If at all possible, always keep enough space in front of your car for quick egress.
Fifth: A less-than-lethal option is always nice.
First, and one I've seen Mas promote: Call the police immediately if you have to use your gun, either firing or not.
Second: Loose lips sink ships. I think every gun should have a roll of duct tape next to it.
Your friend would have been much better off not talking to the other driver. Generally speaking, any kind of communication with this type of person will escalate the situation.Third: Carry your backup in a shoulder rig.
Fourth: If at all possible, always keep enough space in front of your car for quick egress.
Fifth: A less-than-lethal option is always nice.
Yep. They're looking for a fight.Photoman wrote:Second: Loose lips sink ships.... Your friend would have been much better off not talking to the other driver. Generally speaking, any kind of communication with this type of person will escalate the situation.
I think I have defused some situations by a stern look. I say "think" because nothing happened, and I can't know what might have happened.
Yep and yep. I keep pepper spray in the door pocket of my car.Fourth: If at all possible, always keep enough space in front of your car for quick egress.
Fifth: A less-than-lethal option is always nice.
- Jim