TexasCHLforum.com

texanjoker wrote:Had you used deadly force it would have been ugly and could have cost you your freedom. Sure they "may" have been gang members but is fighting a deadly force issue when your buddy is running his mouth off escalating the situation? I am glad you didn't have to find out. Depending on the grand jury it could be cleared or you could have been charged. He owes you a good bottle or dinner. Be thankful it ended the way it did.

Yes, fighting is a deadly force situation. Google one punch kill. The law allows you to present your weapon whenever force is justified and threaten deadly force if the attackers escalate. That's exactly what he did. And it worked.

If you don't think that fighting is a deadly force situation, you need to do some reading. As I said, google one punch kill.

baldeagle wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Had you used deadly force it would have been ugly and could have cost you your freedom. Sure they "may" have been gang members but is fighting a deadly force issue when your buddy is running his mouth off escalating the situation? I am glad you didn't have to find out. Depending on the grand jury it could be cleared or you could have been charged. He owes you a good bottle or dinner. Be thankful it ended the way it did.

Yes, fighting is a deadly force situation. Google one punch kill. The law allows you to present your weapon whenever force is justified and threaten deadly force if the attackers escalate. That's exactly what he did. And it worked.

If you don't think that fighting is a deadly force situation, you need to do some reading. As I said, google one punch kill.

This post brings up a question I have been struggling with since I started carrying. Is it ever OK to draw on someone who is only intent (AFAIK) on a simple fist fight?

The answer for me, I've decided, is yes and here is why. Allowing someone to gain physical control over me while I'm armed is, in and of itself, a life threatening situation. While the aggressor may not have realized the potentially fatal mistake they have made, it does not negate the fact that they have unwittingly threatened my life. The defense will be something to the effect of "well he only meant to bloody his nose" as if somehow the aggressor should be forgiven for only trying to commit a small crime that ended up going horribly wrong. It's not a defense when thugs try to say they only meant to rob a guy and one of them killed him. They all get charged with murder even though it was just supposed to be a small time crime.

I feel the same about simple combat and self defense. My attitude at this point is I will never allow anyone to engage me in a physical fight if I am armed. It is simply too risky and dangerous to allow that to happen. The anti's would say that the gun is what is escalating the situation rather than place the blame on the aggressive instigator who shouldn't be assaulting people to begin with. This ignores the fact that people are perfectly capable of beating someone to death with their bare hands and feet. I personally don't intend to ever let anyone decide how badly they are going to beat me.

I think the OP handled things just about as well as could be handled.

I'm normally pretty slow to pipe in to these sort of discussions. Most of you folks seem to have much more knowledge and experience at these sort of situations than I do. But I'd like to throw out a couple of thoughts that come another side of my life.
When the OP mentioned colors, I just assumed bikers. That may not have been the case, and I know little to nothing about non-motorcycle gangs. And while I want to make it absolutely clear that I have never been a member of an out-law motorcycle club, many of my friends have been or are. While I avoid association with these groups as much as possible, I have been at events frequented by them and their members. Based on what I've seen of these groups, and on what knowledgeable friends have told me, here are some things I believe to be true. Things that it might well be good for all of us to remember.

1) There is no such thing as getting in a fight with A MC club member. There's not even such a thing as getting in a fight with SOME MC Club members. Any confrontation will be with ALL of them. Even the ones who's aren't physically there yet. If you're BA enough to whip the 6 standing in front of you, they'll send seven more.

2) You never win a fight with an MC club member. You may have ended this phase of the confrontation by injuring the guy bad enough that he can no longer attack you. (And that's probably a serious injury, because he is far more afraid of his club members finding out he lost a fight than he is of anything you can do to him.) You have only delayed the fight long enough for his buddies to come find you.

3) The club will never forget you. If they can't get to you, your friends and family will suffice until they can find you.

4) The beat down hurts and you may even carry permaniate physical reminders. But it will be over. If you shoot one of them, the rest of the club will be looking for you, your family, you're dog, or even your dogs girlfriend.

5) For the most part, non-club members are beneath their notice. Unless you do something stupid, they'll pretty much leave you alone.

My advice is, think long and hard about how important this is to you. Just don't get in a fight with one.

Edited: Change the word "biker" to "MC club member."

Fist fighting is for young(er) school children.

olafpfj wrote: Is it ever OK to draw on someone who is only intent (AFAIK) on a simple fist fight?

I know you answered you would but I want to add my yes.

A fist fight is never (well almost) just a fist fight and as was pointed out, a fist is deadly.

I feel bad for the referee who took one shot to the head by a teenager and is now dead and I am sure the kid is saying I didn't mean to kill him!!

In addition to a fist fight being deadly, at some point, doesn't disperity of force come into play as well? 4 on 2 is no bueno.

baldeagle wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Had you used deadly force it would have been ugly and could have cost you your freedom. Sure they "may" have been gang members but is fighting a deadly force issue when your buddy is running his mouth off escalating the situation? I am glad you didn't have to find out. Depending on the grand jury it could be cleared or you could have been charged. He owes you a good bottle or dinner. Be thankful it ended the way it did.

Yes, fighting is a deadly force situation. Google one punch kill. The law allows you to present your weapon whenever force is justified and threaten deadly force if the attackers escalate. That's exactly what he did. And it worked.

If you don't think that fighting is a deadly force situation, you need to do some reading. As I said, google one punch kill.

Sorry but I have to disagree.

Go back to February 1996. The first time a concealed handgun was use to protect a CHL holder in Texas, Gordon Hale was due to a trucker, Kenny Tavai punching the CHL holder through a pickup window.

Mike

texanjoker wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Had you used deadly force it would have been ugly and could have cost you your freedom. Sure they "may" have been gang members but is fighting a deadly force issue when your buddy is running his mouth off escalating the situation? I am glad you didn't have to find out. Depending on the grand jury it could be cleared or you could have been charged. He owes you a good bottle or dinner. Be thankful it ended the way it did.

Yes, fighting is a deadly force situation. Google one punch kill. The law allows you to present your weapon whenever force is justified and threaten deadly force if the attackers escalate. That's exactly what he did. And it worked.

If you don't think that fighting is a deadly force situation, you need to do some reading. As I said, google one punch kill.

Sorry but I have to disagree.

Not to be confrontational but is this from a LEO or lawyer standpoint? I have read about several and they were no bill and no arrest.

So, if I had a guy punch me in the face, out of the blue, and I pulled my firearm and he continued to come after me, you would arrest me?

RX8er wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Had you used deadly force it would have been ugly and could have cost you your freedom. Sure they "may" have been gang members but is fighting a deadly force issue when your buddy is running his mouth off escalating the situation? I am glad you didn't have to find out. Depending on the grand jury it could be cleared or you could have been charged. He owes you a good bottle or dinner. Be thankful it ended the way it did.

Yes, fighting is a deadly force situation. Google one punch kill. The law allows you to present your weapon whenever force is justified and threaten deadly force if the attackers escalate. That's exactly what he did. And it worked.

If you don't think that fighting is a deadly force situation, you need to do some reading. As I said, google one punch kill.

Sorry but I have to disagree.

Not to be confrontational but is this from a LEO or lawyer standpoint? I have read about several and they were no bill and no arrest.

So, if I had a guy punch me in the face, out of the blue, and I pulled my firearm and he continued to come after me, you would arrest me?

No worries. LEO point of view, which is going to be different as I said in my original post. Just wanted to share a different point of view as the point of this thread should be to think what one would do. This wasn't just a person being punched out of the blue. They had an altercation in the bar, went out side and his intoxicated buddy was also being verbal so it wasn't one sided. Sure there can be some no billed, ect but that is probably after going to jail, paying bond, paying legal fees, ect.

re a different post. For me colors meant possible gang involvement, but then a lot wear colors in certain hoods and are not part of any gang. Just wearing the local color.

texanjoker wrote:

RX8er wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

texanjoker wrote:Had you used deadly force it would have been ugly and could have cost you your freedom. Sure they "may" have been gang members but is fighting a deadly force issue when your buddy is running his mouth off escalating the situation? I am glad you didn't have to find out. Depending on the grand jury it could be cleared or you could have been charged. He owes you a good bottle or dinner. Be thankful it ended the way it did.

Yes, fighting is a deadly force situation. Google one punch kill. The law allows you to present your weapon whenever force is justified and threaten deadly force if the attackers escalate. That's exactly what he did. And it worked.

If you don't think that fighting is a deadly force situation, you need to do some reading. As I said, google one punch kill.

Sorry but I have to disagree.

Not to be confrontational but is this from a LEO or lawyer standpoint? I have read about several and they were no bill and no arrest.

So, if I had a guy punch me in the face, out of the blue, and I pulled my firearm and he continued to come after me, you would arrest me?

No worries. LEO point of view, which is going to be different as I said in my original post. Just wanted to share a different point of view as the point of this thread should be to think what one would do. This wasn't just a person being punched out of the blue. They had an altercation in the bar, went out side and his intoxicated buddy was also being verbal so it wasn't one sided. Sure there can be some no billed, ect but that is probably after going to jail, paying bond, paying legal fees, ect.

re a different post. For me colors meant possible gang involvement, but then a lot wear colors in certain hoods and are not part of any gang. Just wearing the local color.

My understanding from the OP was the friend only smarted off in the bar, was too scared to say anything once they left the bar. I think we all can safely assume that the other guys were intent on inflicting physical damage.
So, once they retreated from the bar and were attempting to leave wouldn't the following apply?
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor

I believe, based on the OPs account, that both A and B apply. If so, the original altercation doesn't prohibit the OP from defending himself.

Even if the friend was mouthing off, the OP was trying to get out of there. Therefore the others' pursuit could be seen as escalation by them. Plus there's the disparity of force issue - 4 against 2. Had shots actually been fired, I think an arrest and at least a grand jury would have been the order of the day, so all of the above would have to be argued & proven.

Glad it turned out the way that it did & hope the actual experience along with our Monday morning quarterbacking will aid you further on down the line.

The only fact we know for certain is if he would have shot one or more Quanell X would of been seen with their families..

I want to follow up on something texanjoker said that I think some people are interpreting incorrectly. Sometimes there's a wide gulf between what the Penal Code (typically Chp. 9) states and how it works in the real world. Regardless of the facts, when an ultimately deadly interaction begins at a bar, it prejudices many who will be evaluating our actions. This may or may not include the LEOs who respond, it likely will include the prosecutor handling the case, and you can bet it will include those on the grand jury and ultimately a jury. It's even worse for strip clubs.

Another example of location tainting people's view of your actions are incidents that involve cars. You can be absolutely justified in using deadly force, but if it involves or takes place in or around a motor vehicle, then people are going to think "road rage" or "fender bender shooting." This doesn't mean you are going to lose, but it can well mean that your trip through the system will be longer and more expensive.

In the deadly force segment of my CHL classes, and in my Texas Self-Defense & Deadly Force Laws Seminar, I give an example using deadly force under TPC §9.31(b)(4). I call it the "Bad Bad Leroy Brown" example. While this example deals with using deadly force after you have provoked someone, then disengaged, it's set in a pool hall. When finished, I point out that the §9.31(b)(4)(A) defense is on the books, but good luck convincing anyone that it applies. This is largely because of the setting although one's provocative conduct is also a major factor.

Outside one's home, location rarely if ever has any legal impact on the use of deadly force, but location can have a very strong impact on the way others view our actions.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:In the deadly force segment of my CHL classes, and in my Texas Self-Defense & Deadly Force Laws Seminar, I give an example using deadly force under TPC §9.31(b)(4). I call it the "Bad Bad Leroy Brown" example. While this example deals with using deadly force after you have provoked someone, then disengaged, it's set in a pool hall. When finished, I point out that the §9.31(b)(4)(A) defense is on the books, but good luck convincing anyone that it applies. This is largely because of the setting although one's provocative conduct is also a major factor.

Corrected reference...