TexasCHLforum.com

I've witnessed more than one LP with exaggerated ideas of authority and job responsibility during my many years in retail. He is very lucky to be alive. I might have dropped him with an entire magazine for 1 very specific reason: I would have been terrified that he was about to kill me.

Embalmo

Excaliber wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:So if I'm standing behind him on line and I overhear these threats...
And I see a "bulge" and his hand in his coat...
And I draw and fire.... injuring the guy, or worse..

Standing behind him in line, it's likely the entry wound would be in his back.

What's the likelihood of a "No-Bill".?

PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection
(b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately
necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable
if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle,
or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to
remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation,
vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping,
murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery;

Remember the standard is what a reasonable man would perceive and do under the circumstances. From the situation as described, there would be no way for a reasonable man who observed it to tell it wasn't a robbery, and every reason to believe it was with an innocent life in immediate danger.

I'm with Gigag04 - the idiot who started out vertical would have become horizontal in a hurry.

Also

PC §9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if: (1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes
them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and (2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

I too agree the idiot would have been on the ground.

I don't think the question has been answered yet (aside from the snarky comment) but in this situation, if you see a guy doing this exact thing and you stop him, what is the likelihood of a no-bill? I know what the law says, and I *believe* it would be a no-bill, but I'd love to hear the thoughts of the LEO's and Lawyers on this one.



ETA: For those who are saying they'd be down (floored, horizontal, eating pavement, prone'd out, etc.) does this mean with a pulse or not?

pbwalker wrote:I don't think the question has been answered yet (aside from the snarky comment) but in this situation, if you see a guy doing this exact thing and you stop him, what is the likelihood of a no-bill? I know what the law says, and I *believe* it would be a no-bill, but I'd love to hear the thoughts of the LEO's and Lawyers on this one.



ETA: For those who are saying they'd be down (floored, horizontal, eating pavement, prone'd out, etc.) does this mean with a pulse or not?

I'm no lawyer, but according to section 9.33 in my previous comment, I am pretty sure a shooter would be no-billed.

As far as would he be down with a pulse or not. All I can say is this, in class you are taught to shoot to stop, and the targets say shoot center mass. So it all depends you are only a few steps away and if you shoot center mass from that distance you are probably going to hit something vital.

warhorse10_9 wrote:
As far as would he be down with a pulse or not. All I can say is this, in class you are taught to shoot to stop, and the targets say shoot center mass. So it all depends you are only a few steps away and if you shoot center mass from that distance you are probably going to hit something vital.

Absolutely...I should have clarified that my 'pulse' comment was more directed to the LEO's.

pbwalker wrote:I don't think the question has been answered yet (aside from the snarky comment) but in this situation, if you see a guy doing this exact thing and you stop him, what is the likelihood of a no-bill? I know what the law says, and I *believe* it would be a no-bill, but I'd love to hear the thoughts of the LEO's and Lawyers on this one.



ETA: For those who are saying they'd be down (floored, horizontal, eating pavement, prone'd out, etc.) does this mean with a pulse or not?

That would depend on whether the defender is close enough to have the option of taking him down before the BG could draw, or whether he has to be dealt with from a distance. The second case is self explanatory.

Oldgringo wrote: Maybe we do need CHL licenses?

On second thought, maybe there should be bright CHL sashes...worn over the clothes.

HotLeadSolutions, did your niece happen to get the guy's name? I'll cheerfully call, file a complaint, and inform them that I'll never spend another cent there until he's fired and they pay for her counseling.

Oldgringo wrote:What's the liklihood of your 'back shot' passing through the "guy" and hitting the cashier or some other bystander? What if the cashier pulled a gun, shot the perceived threat and 2-3 people standing in line?

A Barrett M82 is not a concealable weapon.

A CHL is not a BATMAN license.

It's not a coward license either.

KD5NRH wrote:

A CHL is not a BATMAN license.

It's not a coward license either.

My thoughts exactly

Ive worked retail as a cashier before and i have never heard or seen this sort of "training" technique. Had it been me behind the register and he pulled this stunt, i would punched him right in the face after he said it was a test! Was this guy pulling a prank and then realized it was going south and decided to play it off as a training exercise? Did your niece talk to her manager and file a complaint?

KD5NRH wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:What's the liklihood of your 'back shot' passing through the "guy" and hitting the cashier or some other bystander? What if the cashier pulled a gun, shot the perceived threat and 2-3 people standing in line?

A Barrett M82 is not a concealable weapon.

A CHL is not a BATMAN license.

It's not a coward license either.

First off even a .22 can exit a human body if it enters correctly, any time you squeeze that trigger you risk the bullet exiting the target and hitting something else this is why we have rule #4 which reads Be sure of your target and what is beyond it. The bold portion is specific to this discussion. As for the Batman license thing: a CHL does not obligate you one way or the other, however it does not mean you should go around looking for a chance to use it. Any time you can avoid using deadly force you should make a decision not to use it, that is one reason we have de-escalation in our CHL classes.

Oldgringo wrote:

Oldgringo wrote: Maybe we do need CHL licenses?

On second thought, maybe there should be bright CHL sashes...worn over the clothes.

IIRC, someone previously suggested a CHL cape. The less motivated (cowardly) CHL's among us need some sort of indicator that a hero CHL is in our midst and that we may need to duck if hero CHL springs into action with all guns spitting hot lead.

The uniformed and badged LEO's we should be able to recognize before they lay down a barrage on the idiot at the cash register.

While we're sorta' on the subject, what was that guy's name who got down at the COSTCO in Las Vegas a while back because some store employee became exercised about something the deceased said or did?

...Mr. Heath is correct...we're responsible for every shot fired...I teach folks to drop to a knee when possible so that the bullet angles up...may not be possible or practical...but consider it in a crowd situation...

...I've also taught rookies and family that by the time you've made the decision to put a gun in your hand, it's highly unlikely that you'll gain anything or de-escalate the situation by talking...the marble's already gone down the chute or the guy wouldn't know you had a gun...especially if you're a civilian...uniformed cops may be required to announce or tell them to drop it by dept. policy...and they're highly trained to make those decisions...but a citizen is only required to satisfy the points of the law...and then may legally act to stop the threat...once you've shown that you're armed...you're the target...and ask any trainer here what happens while you're talking...you give him the advantage...once you've made the decision to intervene and do something...DO IT...
...some robberies go "smoothly" with all complying...the perp leaves with the money...noone's hurt...and a good witness is a valuable thing...some go real roughly...I know of one where 5 people were shot...no resistance was offered...they just didn't move fast enough to suit the rattled robber....and they were neighbors and friends not doing ANYTHING but living their lives...it's impossible to get it right all the time...we should all pray for wisdom everytime we arm up and leave the house...every bit of good advice here and all available training still doesn't guarantee anything...that's life...

...and my last word on this thread, lest I be thought contentious, is that a man who disagrees with another needs to voice his opinion in an open forum without resorting to cheap shots and ridicule...you may disagree...that's fine...but there's nothing contributed by smart-alec, mean-spirited sniping when someone's asking sincere questions or discussing a situation rationally...if we're going to stomp them down...why should they come here? Why should they ask and subject themselves to ridicule...we can be better than that...while being in total disagreement with what's said...

Dave2 wrote:HotLeadSolutions, did your niece happen to get the guy's name? I'll cheerfully call, file a complaint, and inform them that I'll never spend another cent there until he's fired and they pay for her counseling.

Unless you are directly involved in an event, are an immediate family member, or their lawyer, you are usually better to keep from getting involved in these types of issues. The reason being, this is all hearsay on the forum. Not that it is not factual, but when the complaint people want to follow up with you, all you will be able to say is 'Well, this guy on the Internet said....'. That won't buy any credibility with the company, and actually could hurt any potential litigation that may stem from this incident.

So, discuss the scenario here with the names changed to protect the folks, but best let those involved directly deal with it.