TexasCHLforum.com

txinvestigator wrote: Texas does not allow deadly force if you are "in fear of your life". AS this is a seperate issue, I am going to start a new thread. I will link to it here after I post it.

So how would we reconcile that if he attempts to get the weapon back via a wrestling match, he has not exerted 'deadly force' until he actually has the weapon(?!?). At that point he it may be too late for you. At what point does fear for your life, real fear due to tha fact that 5 seconds ago he was pointing a gun at you, become use of deadly force as he comes at you again with very recent history of attempted aggravated robbery against you?

I agree that the best course of action is to put distance between you and him if you can. But if you can't for whatever valid reason, contained between buildings or something, what would you do. If he comes at you in that circumstance, you have two choices, prepare for a wrestling match and risk that the weapon will be used against you by someone who has already indicated by action that they would use it or use the weapon to prevent that.

I'm not trying to argue or be a smart mouth. this just has me thinking, which is good! But my personal philosphy (from an earlier post) is I'm a firm believer that situational awareness is your #1 weapon, de-escalation (apologize, leave, whatever it takes) is #2, and the firearm is #last.

GrillKing wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: Texas does not allow deadly force if you are "in fear of your life". AS this is a seperate issue, I am going to start a new thread. I will link to it here after I post it.

So how would we reconcile that if he attempts to get the weapon back via a wrestling match, he has not exerted 'deadly force' until he actually has the weapon(?!?).

I think the attempt to get weapon back would qualify as robbery or aggravated robbery and those are felonies in which you have a defense to prosecution (TX's "justification") for the use of deadly force (per PC 9.32 (B))

-nick

gigag04 wrote:

GrillKing wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: Texas does not allow deadly force if you are "in fear of your life". AS this is a seperate issue, I am going to start a new thread. I will link to it here after I post it.

So how would we reconcile that if he attempts to get the weapon back via a wrestling match, he has not exerted 'deadly force' until he actually has the weapon(?!?).

I think the attempt to get weapon back would qualify as robbery or aggravated robbery and those are felonies in which you have a defense to prosecution (TX's "justification") for the use of deadly force (per PC 9.32 (B))

-nick

If someone is trying to get a firearm from me, I think it is reasonable to believe that it is immediately necessary to use deadly force to prevent him from using unlawful deadly force against me.

txinvestigator wrote: Texas does not allow deadly force if you are "in fear of your life". AS this is a seperate issue, I am going to start a new thread. I will link to it here after I post it.

What I should have said was "I was in fear for my life, because this person had his gun pointed at me 3 seconds ago. I managed to take the gun away from him, but he is continuing to assault me and is trying to take the weapon back from me. Due to his previous and continued attack utilizing the threat of deadly force with the weapon, I have every reason to believe he will immediately use the weapon against me. Since I cannot retreat, I may need to use the weapon to stop this threat of deadly force." Of course this all occurs in 0.1 seconds.

In other words, in txinvestigators example in the new thread, I agree, fear for my life is not justification at all. There is no immediate threat. However in the immediate, imminent danger of this scenario, I believe a case could be made for use of the weapon to stop the threat. This is more than fear, it is a reality that the assailent is attempting to use deadly force by taking the weapon to use against me. I also reiterate, If at all possible, I would put distance between myself and the assailant to make this all a moot point.

I promise, I'll move "fear for my life" comments and questions to the new thread now!!

Thanks for the great discussion and input...

GrillKing wrote:
So how would we reconcile that if he attempts to get the weapon back via a wrestling match, he has not exerted 'deadly force' until he actually has the weapon(?!?). .

The law does not require that he actually USE deadly force against me. If I reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent his ATTEMPTED use of lawful deadly force against me, then I can use deadly force.

GrillKing wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: Texas does not allow deadly force if you are "in fear of your life". AS this is a seperate issue, I am going to start a new thread. I will link to it here after I post it.

What I should have said was "I was in fear for my life, because this person had his gun pointed at me 3 seconds ago. I managed to take the gun away from him, but he is continuing to assault me and is trying to take the weapon back from me. Due to his previous and continued attack utilizing the threat of deadly force with the weapon, I have every reason to believe he will immediately use the weapon against me. Since I cannot retreat, I may need to use the weapon to stop this threat of deadly force." Of course this all occurs in 0.1 seconds.

In other words, in txinvestigators example in the new thread, I agree, fear for my life is not justification at all. There is no immediate threat. However in the immediate, imminent danger of this scenario, I believe a case could be made for use of the weapon to stop the threat. This is more than fear, it is a reality that the assailent is attempting to use deadly force by taking the weapon to use against me. I also reiterate, If at all possible, I would put distance between myself and the assailant to make this all a moot point.

I promise, I'll move "fear for my life" comments and questions to the new thread now!!

Thanks for the great discussion and input...

I agree with you 100%!

txinvestigator wrote:I agree with you 100%!

And that is why I also believe if you are ever so unfortunate to have to use your weapon against another even in the most righteous of shootings, you should say to the LEO that arrive when asked what happened, "I want to cooperate, and will fully cooperate once I have spoken to my attorney"

In this thread, if it actually occurred with me, when I said "I feared for my life", I may have hurt myself when what I meant was "I was in fear for my life because......deadly force........deadly force......." (Actual words crafted with assistance of counsel).

What I originally said in this thread was not what I meant or should have said, but since I actually said it, in the real world, that is what would have been recorded ('and possibly used against me in a court of law')

flintknapper wrote: You immediately rack the slide (not knowing the condition of the weapon) and cover the perp. while gaining distance.

Question: You are now armed, the perp. is unarmed. Are you "legally" justified to "threaten deadly force" by holding him at gunpoint. Think about it.

Well guys,

As you can see, it is easy to come up with different opinons...when no more details (than were given), are available.

Many fine points were made, and I believe this group has a very good "tactical handle" on what might be an appropriate response.

I was glad to see gigag04 pick up on the word "Legally", and present a challenge to its use. I agree with him 100% for several reasons.

First, the word "legal/legally", has the basic meaning of: By law, or conforming to the law.

Second, the word "law" (as in legal), can be taken to mean: A rule, or body of rules.

Any of the lawyers here will tell you that "the law" is only "a good starting point". If it were all cut and dried...we would have no need for judges, lawyers or juries. We have lawyers to argue the "law", and judges to interpret it. So... while we may want to present certain penal codes to support our position, in the end....."justification" will ultimately be determined by: Prior case law, other legal precedents, and most importantly (what another reasonable and prudent person) might have done in the same situation. So, "The Answer" from a legal perspective is an absolute "we'll see"!

From a purely tactical standpoint, if you don't cover the threat until you have retreated to a safe distance, then we need to talk. In this case, there has been no verbal threat. But, we might "reasonably" deduce that the perp. intentionally threatened deadly force, or was about to use deadly force...by his actions alone.
By disarming him, we have only succeeded (for the moment) to deprive him the use of that particular weapon. His intentions may still be the same, and he might very well have another weapon, or try to regain the one taken from him.
For these reasons, I think it is "prudent" to cover the threat until such time as you gain 25 or more feet between you, and he clearly indicates that he wishes to disengage.

At this point, you'll want to be mindful that LEO is probably on the way, and most likely all the information they have is: Man with a gun! If you still have it in your hand when they get there, then you're braver (or more foolish) than I am.

All of the above is my opinion only! It is worth, just exactly what it cost you: $.000000

I hope no one is too disappointed....thinking that there would be a definitive "right" answer at the end of all this. It was meant only to stimulate some thought, and I think you guys are pretty darn sharp about it!

flintknapper;

Excellent point of discussion. Good thread.

But umm, well, let me see.........how can I put this....

We don't call em "perps" in Texas. Thats some Yankee Talk

Yankees? You mean like the baseball team?

flintknapper wrote: I hope no one is too disappointed....thinking that there would be a definitive "right" answer at the end of all this. It was meant only to stimulate some thought, and I think you guys are pretty darn sharp about it!

I'm a bit disappointed - I had a "premeditated" response to the next what if.

It would be something to effect of "what if after his buddy shows up with a bat and gives him a knife, two apache helicopters strafe the parking lot, hitting the gas tank of thier car and blowing them both, but leaving me intact."

txinvestigator wrote:flintknapper;
We don't call em "perps" in Texas. Thats some Yankee Talk

I can assure you.. there is nothing remotely "Yankee" about me.

The only time the "Y" word is used in my home, is when something derogatory is being said.

Yankee talk! God forbid.

In the future, I will use BG.

My apologies, and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest my body. I have shamed my family.

flintknapper wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:flintknapper;
We don't call em "perps" in Texas. Thats some Yankee Talk

I can assure you.. there is nothing remotely "Yankee" about me.

The only time the "Y" word is used my home, is when something derogatory is being said.

Yankee talk! God forbid.

In the future, I will use BG.

My apologies, and may the fleas of a thousand camels infest my body. I have shamed my family.

LMAO.......

Like Flint implied...

There appears to be no definitive answer to this senario...

But...

The answers and commentary so far further solidify my opinion and confidence that the folks here will conduct themselves appropriately and reasonably...

I had no doubt about that at all, for what my opinion is worth...

The mere fact that anything can and will happen, that no one can ever foresee is an understatement...But I think we make seamless adjustments for any condition...

I believe the best spin-off discussion was the whole detainment/arrest issue...Although I think its is a rare occurrance, and most of us know what we'd do in that case...Its good to rejuvinate the gray matter on the subject...

If anything, I do believe it is also a "duty" or responsibility to de-escalate even an imminent use of deadly force condition, to something less than that response, if you can of course...But that is just a personal opinion...

This is another great thread...