TexasCHLforum.com

Some of us know nothing but serious about life. Take what is said at face value & dont try to read between the lines or decide what another means. We say what we mean & hear every one else the same way. No one has to guess that way.

one eyed fatman wrote:txinvestigator you need an attitude adjustment. I was just kidding. ElGato had it right. "The grand jury or the jury will define reasonable in each case". It does not matter how me or you define the law it will be the Grand jury's decision. All we can do on this forum is blow smoke and keep asking questions. If you can misunderstand me you can misunderstand the law. It's just that simple. I took no offense at your post. The law will drive you crazy if you let it. I choose not.

Whatever. Perhaps you should just sit back and try to learn rather than pop off and and then claim "I'm joking" whan set straight.

And I "need" an attitude adjustment? Thats funny. When you grow up we can talk about it.

Perhaps you should just sit back and try to learn rather than pop off

Your only problem is you think you can make sense of the law. You think you can understand it. You can't. Right now Yates is trying to use the law to get away with 5 murders. Who knows she just might succeed. OJ did succeed.

To answer the ORIGINAL question, I think the OP could most likely get by without retreating in most situations, considering his condition.
OP, is your disability visible? (In other words, could your attacker clearly see that you are disabled?) If so, I would imagine that this could be used against the attacker in court. He's preying on someone that is already at an extreme disadvantage.
My CHL instructor put it this way: If you have to shoot, try and take steps backward while doing so. This increases the distance between you and the assailant. The assailant doesn't likely go to the gun range to practice. You most likely do. With distance, he has less chance of hitting you, but your chances are still good (both for survival and for hitting him). Also, when bystanders see you stepping back, you are attempting to retreat, even while fighting.

one eyed fatman wrote:

Perhaps you should just sit back and try to learn rather than pop off

Your only problem is you think you can make sense of the law. You think you can understand it. You can't.

Its even funnier that you think that. Perhaps YOU can't understand it, but I have no problems with it.

And if I need help with my "problems" or figuring out what my problem might be, rest assured I won't be taking advice from you.


You are really digging yourself in deeper here, but out of respect for Charles and this site, I am ceasing this conversation with you. Everyone here has enough information to know whats what.

One day last year I was north bound on a local four lane city road.
The right hand lane was closed due to some construction thereby making it a one lane bottleneck.

I was attempting a left turn into a major retailer’s parking lot while traffic in the opposite direction was consistent. This caused a minor traffic jam behind me.

It was cool enough that I had my window down and actually used a hand signal—along with my mechanical signals. There was a very impatient driver a couple of vehicles behind me and he started laying on his horn and shouting for me to move on as I was blocking his bleeping way.

When traffic cleared enough for me to safely complete my turn into the parking lot I did so. Well aparently, this guy is really upset with me by now and he follows me into the parking lot and pulls up next to me and he starts cussin’ me out because I was making him late for his appointment, and that I should have continued on without tying up traffic.

I rolled up my window, that made him even madder, and he threw open his driver’s door and jumped out and started in my direction. No weapons visible, just his temper.

I placed my vehicle in reverse and backed out, while my wife dialed 911 to report his actions. (I retreated.)

He piled back into his vehicle and raced around the parking lot to cut me off. He did. (His second confrontation.)

Now it becomes a serious confrontation as he's using a 2 ton vehicle to block my egress.

I placed my car in reverse once again to avoid the confrontation. (I once again retreated, as my wife held up her cell phone and mouting the words "911" so he could understand very plainly our intent that we had the police on the phone.)

He got the message and abandoned the encounter.

Other people in the parking lot came up to us after the actor had fled the scene and asked if we were ok, and what had happened. They offered names and addresses as witnesses if we needed them.

The police showed up in just a couple of minutes and we gave them a report of what just happened.

No weapons produced, just his attitude.


Now, I do understand that each and every situation is and will be different, but I like to think that in this situation I kept my head and avoided the confrontation.

I do wonder what he would have done if we'd had our 50 lb 1/2 Golden Retriever 1/2 Black Lab with us, and with her growling at him at the outset.

Russ

I think you were very wise.
(I would have had my hand discretely on my gun.)

That guy must have been from California. Out there if there is a four lane road, that one side is down to one, The crew has to put signs in the middle that says No Left turn unless there is a center lane, and the police will ticket you if try to turn left. Glad you and family are ok. I think you did all you could, and did it right Best regards, John

bauerdj wrote:Thats where the "reasonible person" part comes in.

I think the important part is "if a reasonable person in the actor's situation... ".

In the original question, the actor's situation is that he's unable to retreat.

The laws allowing defensive use of deadly force are highly situational and subjective. That probably allows more people to legally use DF than if there were a list of hard-and-fast rules about when DF is permissable, and when it's not.

Kevin

And if I need help with my "problems" or figuring out what my problem might be, rest assured I won't be taking advice from you.

Why would you? I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to understand the law.
As KBCraig stated "The laws allowing defensive use of deadly force are highly situational and subjective".

Quote: "this is a pattern for you. Flame away if you will, but I think the level headed, mature posters here will agree with me."

Yep, yep!

kw5kw,

Good example of duty to retreat! Thank you for your post, sounds like you made the right move in that encounter.

JLaw

A 3rd yep added to Greybeard.

Sounds like a win to me... and an excellent example of retreating...

Even if there were no duty to retreat, I think your course of action was still wise... people forget, you don't have to shoot just because it may be justified legally.

The guy apparently has a serious mental problem... and is probably a yankee too...

V/r

Chuck

kw5kw wrote:One day last year I was north bound on a local four lane city road.
The right hand lane was closed due to some construction thereby making it a one lane bottleneck.

[SNIP]

I do wonder what he would have done if we'd had our 50 lb 1/2 Golden Retriever 1/2 Black Lab with us, and with her growling at him at the outset.

Russ

cxm wrote:... and is probably a yankee too...

I LIKE IT!!!

JLaw