TexasCHLforum.com

...your last phrase nailed it...5 different GJ panels could feel 5 different ways about it...

speedsix wrote:...your last phrase nailed it...5 different GJ panels could feel 5 different ways about it...

I agree, you really can't be certain of what will happen after a deadly force incident. Will depend on the responding officer (what his report says), prosecutor, your attorney, grand jury, judge and jury. Also will depend on the area. Austin has very different attitudes than west Texas. Ditto for any civil trial.

Would also depend on all the individual facts (day/night, distances, etc.)

What if the OP had been forced to draw his weapon.
The BG obviously sees it at this point and says "oh! sorry" and turns to leave.

Do you let him leave?
Do you tell him to hit the ground as you call for police?

Curious.

...let him leave...write down a good description, and call the police, telling them you've been forced by an intruder to threaten to use deadly force because he was threatening you and put you in fear of your life, which would be true if you had been "forced" to draw your weapon...

...the rule is that if you would be justified in USING deadly force, then you are justified in THREATENING to use deadly force...

speedsix wrote:...the rule is that if you would be justified in USING deadly force, then you are justified in THREATENING to use deadly force...

Actually, you only need to be justified in using FORCE before you can threaten deadly force...

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force
is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes
of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by
the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose
is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly
force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

So, let us say someone physically attacked CHLer, such taking a swing, or punch. Let us say, the CHL consequently draws his firearm and threaten to us deadly force.

The CHLer act as per law so far is justified. The problem is if the assailant did not back off and kept advancing or attempting to assault again. The problem is that the law does not provide a clear justification for use of deadly force.

It is only what is reasonably necessary and it is up to the DA, Grand Jury, and actual trial Jury to decide if the use of deadly force was justified.

...you might wanna go back and make the first sentence red..."The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter..."

...if chapter 9 justifies use of deadly force, the threat of deadly force is justified...
...if chapter 9 justifies the use of "force but not deadly force", the threat of deadly force is NOT justified...the chapter makes a difference between the two...there are times you can legally threaten force...but you can't legally threaten deadly force...

...our OP could easily be covered under 9:32(a)(1) and (2) and (b)(1)(A)

Beiruty wrote:So, let us say someone physically attacked CHLer, such taking a swing, or punch. Let us say, the CHL consequently draws his firearm and threaten to us deadly force.

The CHLer act as per law so far is justified. The problem is if the assailant did not back off and kept advancing or attempting to assault again. The problem is that the law does not provide a clear justification for use of deadly force.

It is only what is reasonably necessary and it is up to the DA, Grand Jury, and actual trial Jury to decide if the use of deadly force was justified.

...you're right in part..the law only provides a clear justification for the use of deadly force in some cases...and ONLY in those are you justified in THREATENING to use deadly force...so you're wrong in saying"... the CHLer act as per law so far is justified..."
...first half of the paragraph is wrong...second second half explains why...

...in layman's terms...don't bluff...if he calls your bluff...you're in trouble...

How do you explain, this statement especially " does not constitute the use of deadly force":

For purposes
of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by
the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose
is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly
force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Many would claim, that the statement means the "threat of deadly force" is just force. If not the law is not clear enough.

Beiruty wrote:How do you explain, this statement especially " does not constitute the use of deadly force":

For purposes
of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by
the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose
is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly
force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

Many would claim, that the statement means the "threat of deadly force" is just force. If not the law is not clear enough.

...we can't just read part of it...the first sentence says the threat of force is justified WHEN the USE of force is justified......the threat you're talking about is NOT the same as use...but the threat must be justified...

...the PC9:04 is not giving you the right to threaten to use deadly force in any situation where force would be justified...it IS giving you the right to threaten to use deadly force in justified deadly force situations... force gets threat of force....deadly force situation gets threat of deadly force...

...here's a source that explains the difference in the article... http://www.pasadenachl.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks it make sense, as the rule that always, always I hear about and should be followed is: Force deployed to counter equally force and no more. That is no excessive force. That is the the case, unless disparity of force comes to play.

Assault with NO deadly weapon can be countered by non-deadly force.
Unless 2 or more attackers against 1 defendant.
Unless a roid rage Hulk is attacking a 60 yrs old man.

Many claim and show cases where assault with no-weapon turned deadly. Knock out punch where the victim hit the ground and dies.

Of course, Assault or attempted assault with deadly weapon would be countered by deadly force.

...we've argued/discussed this before viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44905" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; some think it means the threat of deadly force is fine if the use of ANY level of force is justified in Chapter 9...but in a case where Chapter 9 said the use of "force but not deadly force" is justified...you'd better not threaten deadly force... I may have the right to use force to restrain a shoplifter...if I pull a gun and tell him I'll shoot him if he doesn't stop...I just messed up bigtime!!!

speedsix wrote:...we've argued/discussed this before viewtopic.php?f=7&t=44905" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; some think it means the threat of deadly force is fine if the use of ANY level of force is justified in Chapter 9...but in a case where Chapter 9 said the use of "force but not deadly force" is justified...you'd better not threaten deadly force... I may have the right to use force to restrain a shoplifter...if I pull a gun and tell him I'll shoot him if he doesn't stop...I just messed up bigtime!!!

In Physical Assault or attempt of Physical case, the actor can claim he is being robbed and he threatened the use of deadly force or deployed deadly force to terminate the robbery. This is a valid defense.

Pawpaw wrote:Actually, you only need to be justified in using FORCE before you can threaten deadly force...

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force
is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes
of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by
the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose
is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly
force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

However, if you are not justified in using deadly force, but you pull out your handgun and start waving it around, you can still be charged with not concealing.