TexasCHLforum.com

Just saw this thread. I can't lie I did not read all 5 pages. Just wanted to drop in and let wgoforth know he did good

From what I did see a few posters had good comments that warning you will draw gives the BG an advantage to draw first. While I tend to agree with this I also agree that each scenario is different. Living in a new subdivision in San Antonio that has had a lot or break-ins, home invasions, car theft, and a lot of shady "door to door salesmen" since we moved in, I would have drawn on him once he said NO and continued to advance towards me. However, that is my situation. As you said you could have closed the door and did not feel in danger. You did great! The situation was de-escalated, the BG was arrested, and you were unharmed. Sounds to me like a perfect end to a potentially dangerous incident.

I am confused. The news report stated that you drew your weapon but in the OP you threatened to draw. Is this just another case of bad journalism?

DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:I am confused. The news report stated that you drew your weapon but in the OP you threatened to draw. Is this just another case of bad journalism?

Shall we say "Overactive journalism." She is actually pro-second ammendment, but I told her in the interview that as I reached in my pocket for my gun, I told him if he did not leave NOW, he was going to have a gun in his face. He stopped. Thankful the news didn't report "Crazed fundamentalist preacher waves gun wildly at innocent hard working salesman."


In hindsight... I never dreamed he would not immediatly leave upon being called out looking in my van. Van was on the street and I was on the front porch. I assumed he would just walk away. BUT, thats just it, we never know and these guys are not usually bright. Plus finding out his warrant was on unlawful possesion of a firearm... I SHOULD have had gun out and behind my back when I opened the door. Too, as he approached me and refused to leave, I could tell how much it slowed me down trying to retrieve my gun from my pocket. No more of that, I went straight to OWB carry. I had a belt holster, but reserved it for under suit coats, vests, etc. Now that's the only place it goes. It was obvious that it was the threat of a gun which made him leave.

wgoforth wrote:I went straight to OWB carry. I had a belt holster, but reserved it for under suit coats, vests, etc. Now that's the only place it goes. It was obvious that it was the threat of a gun which made him leave.

Good choice. I always carry OWB when I am at the house. When I open the door it's on my hip. Too many stories about people barging into a house as the owner opens the door and I do not want to be trying to reach into my pocket for a gun so I keep it in the open. Like you I will usually answer so that they know someone is home. We do not know anyone in San Antonio so anyone that comes to our door is a stranger. Plus, as I stated in my earlier post we have had problems with thieves, thugs, and "salesmen".

DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:

wgoforth wrote:I went straight to OWB carry. I had a belt holster, but reserved it for under suit coats, vests, etc. Now that's the only place it goes. It was obvious that it was the threat of a gun which made him leave.

Good choice. I always carry OWB when I am at the house. When I open the door it's on my hip. Too many stories about people barging into a house as the owner opens the door and I do not want to be trying to reach into my pocket for a gun so I keep it in the open. Like you I will usually answer so that they know someone is home. We do not know anyone in San Antonio so anyone that comes to our door is a stranger. Plus, as I stated in my earlier post we have had problems with thieves, thugs, and "salesmen".

Sad story on the reporter... her parents were pro-gun folks. Thief came in their house to steal their guns and shot both of her parents in their sleep. Her father had a pistol on the nightstand next to him.

I have always carried in my house as well in case of home invaders. If it doesn't do the trick, it should let us fight our way back to wear we have home defense guns and spare mags scattered at strategic points around the house.

wgoforth wrote:

DONT TREAD ON ME wrote:

wgoforth wrote:I went straight to OWB carry. I had a belt holster, but reserved it for under suit coats, vests, etc. Now that's the only place it goes. It was obvious that it was the threat of a gun which made him leave.

Good choice. I always carry OWB when I am at the house. When I open the door it's on my hip. Too many stories about people barging into a house as the owner opens the door and I do not want to be trying to reach into my pocket for a gun so I keep it in the open. Like you I will usually answer so that they know someone is home. We do not know anyone in San Antonio so anyone that comes to our door is a stranger. Plus, as I stated in my earlier post we have had problems with thieves, thugs, and "salesmen".

Sad story on the reporter... her parents were pro-gun folks. Thief came in their house to steal their guns and shot both of her parents in their sleep. Her father had a pistol on the nightstand next to him.

I have always carried in my house as well in case of home invaders. If it doesn't do the trick, it should let us fight our way back to wear we have home defense guns and spare mags scattered at strategic points around the house.

That is s horrible story.

I do not have spare mags around the house as I have two small children but if my 1911 or XD doesn't do the trick as you I hope it gives me enough fight to get to my Mossberg.

...we need to be able to put our hands on a gun in the time it takes for a kick to open a door...it's that serious...the dog may not bark...we may not hear the screen open...on our person or within reach is best...and, I agree...the handgun's to get us to the long gun...mags are scattered through the house...anywhere I am there's at least one...shame to have to live this way but it's real...glad wgoforth got reasonably accurate coverage...that story may save lives!!!

speedsix wrote:glad wgoforth got reasonably accurate coverage...that story may save lives!!!

Not only may it help people see why a gun is important for self-defense but that being vigilant and knowing your surroundings is the first step to protecting youself. Had he or his wife not noticed that it was the same guy as the night before walking on their street then he wouldn't have been aware that he was looking into his vehicle and talking on the phone (A pure assumption on my part but I believe he was casing the neighborhood. When he noticed that a woman answered the door at 2100 the night prior he thought he had found a good easy target. He came back the next day to get more info and see the house during the daytime and was calling his "buddies" to inform them of what he found).

Jumping Frog wrote:

speedsix wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:I am talking about the case where you threaten deadly force as a means of using (regular) force when only (regular) force is justified. It is legal to threaten deadly force as a means of using (regular) force, but you can be charged under those circumstances with failure to conceal.

...nope...can't agree with that...common sense tells me that if you can't legally shoot, you can't legally threaten to shoot...THAT'S where we have disagreement...

First of all, we are closer in outlook on this that you may realize. My attitude is, "don't pull it out if you can't legally shoot it."

However, the part I was talking about is PC §9.04., which says in part "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."

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 someone reads that and thinks it is OK to threaten to shoot because it constitutes force instead of deadly force, I am saying it is still a stupid idea because they can still be charged with failure to conceal. See http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... al#p310312" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Drawing without immediate justification to shoot creates an opportunity for the BG to either challenge you to shoot him (which he knows you can't legally do at that point) as he closes on you with empty hands held wide apart to make you look to witnesses like the aggressor, start yelling to bystanders that this crazy guy used a racial epithet and drew a gun on him for no reason at all, or something along those lines.

This can make things go south pretty quickly, and your options in these circumstances are not pretty.

Sane, well intentioned people will normally back off if a weapon is drawn. Bad guys are not well intentioned, and often not sane. All bad guys are manipulative opportunists, and a sizable percentage are crazy.

I don't like to use tactics that leave me holding an exposed weapon I can't use and create opportunities for the BG to easily put me in a very difficult position.

speedsix wrote:

wgoforth wrote:I guess I do not understand,... man whom you know was looking through your vehicle....advances towards you on your own property. You tell him twice to stop. He tells you no and continues advancing. Why would I NOT be able to say I felt threatened and deemed it neccesary to stop him? BTW, his outstanding warrant was for illegal posession of a firearm.

...regardless of what his warrant was for...you understand perfectly, and did quite well what a reasonable man would do...and were justified...and are to be commended for your restraint in not drawing and pointing it at him...though that would have been justified in your scenario as you posted it...

Wow. Not sure how I missed this thread until today.

Seems to me that you very reasonable and I have no disagreement with the way you handled it.

Situations like this are why I am slowly installing video and audio recording around the exterior of my home.

If this event had been recorded, it might have gone viral.

I once had a door to door sales job and we were instructed never to take no as the answer until the fifth time.
Everyone says no the first couple of times to a D to D guy.

However, this guy clearly handled it the wrong way and it sounds like he was up to no good and your read of the situation was spot on.

Cheers

...look at the first sentence of PC9:04 above...

...now look at PC46.035(a) and (h)...

...together, they seem to require the right to USE deadly force before we are justified in threatening deadly force...or even displaying our weapon...Excaliber is right on...there have always been some, and these days many more, who will try to provoke and direct the drama, hoping to get us to back down...which, if we're not justified in USING deadly force, we'll have to do...and they know it...so why put yourself in the fool's corner by exposing or drawing your weapon before justified in USING it...it's like the old "racking the pump shotgun'll scare 'em to death...they'll give up" theory...does it work sometimes...yep...done it many times...but these days, you may be standing in a pile of unfired shells with an empty weapon if you're counting on that to intimidate them...

...tell 'em you have a gun...reach as if you're ready to draw...or have your hand behind your leg with it...but I wouldn't let them see mine till just before I pulled the trigger...it's not for bluffing or negotiating...it's for stopping a threat...if the threat doesn't justify deadly force, we'll know it...they'll likely know it...and we're in a position of weakness...and legally so...

PappaGun wrote:

speedsix wrote:

wgoforth wrote:I guess I do not understand,... man whom you know was looking through your vehicle....advances towards you on your own property. You tell him twice to stop. He tells you no and continues advancing. Why would I NOT be able to say I felt threatened and deemed it neccesary to stop him? BTW, his outstanding warrant was for illegal posession of a firearm.

...regardless of what his warrant was for...you understand perfectly, and did quite well what a reasonable man would do...and were justified...and are to be commended for your restraint in not drawing and pointing it at him...though that would have been justified in your scenario as you posted it...

Wow. Not sure how I missed this thread until today.

Seems to me that you very reasonable and I have no disagreement with the way you handled it.

Situations like this are why I am slowly installing video and audio recording around the exterior of my home.

If this event had been recorded, it might have gone viral.

I once had a door to door sales job and we were instructed never to take no as the answer until the fifth time.
Everyone says no the first couple of times to a D to D guy.

However, this guy clearly handled it the wrong way and it sounds like he was up to no good and your read of the situation was spot on.

Cheers

...good point...I never took "no" for an answer the first time, either...but the first negative answer I got, I'd back up a coupla steps and ask if I'd caught them at a bad time...would they prefer me call for an appointment...which they often gave...I didn't keep advancing on an elderly(sorry wgoforth ) man or woman telling them "No" on their own property...that makes for skinny salesmen....

wgoforth wrote:Didn't realize until today that the story made TV news.... http://bigcountryhomepage.com/search-fu ... _id=397777" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Scary to imagine what would have happened on his first visit if your door had not been locked.

wife went to answer the door and noted that someone was trying to open it, attempting to turn the knob even before she could answer it

I am IN NO WAY criticizing the original poster. I think you did great and if I were on a Grand Jury I would vote to no-bill a person defending themselves on their own property. However, I wonder if the other members of a Grand Jury would also see it this way. Would the law actually help me if I shot this unarmed person, or is it dependent on the mood of the Grand Jury that particular day?

You know the saying, "Cops are only minutes away when you only have seconds....." or something similar. Point is, in situations like this I think using the cell phone first is the better choice. HO wasn't in immediate danger. If you ask the guy to leave and he refuses, dial 911 on the spot. If the person then shows aggression because you drop a dime on him, then by all means exercise other options.

Jimineer wrote:

I am IN NO WAY criticizing the original poster. I think you did great and if I were on a Grand Jury I would vote to no-bill a person defending themselves on their own property. However, I wonder if the other members of a Grand Jury would also see it this way. Would the law actually help me if I shot this unarmed person, or is it dependent on the mood of the Grand Jury that particular day?

You know the saying, "Cops are only minutes away when you only have seconds....." or something similar. Point is, in situations like this I think using the cell phone first is the better choice. HO wasn't in immediate danger. If you ask the guy to leave and he refuses, dial 911 on the spot. If the person then shows aggression because you drop a dime on him, then by all means exercise other options.

I have to disagree with you. The guy was showing aggression by telling the HO no when told to leave the property and advancing towards him. The home owner had every legal right to threaten use of force or deadly force. The BG was already at his house the night prior and was told that they weren't buying what he was selling so he had absolutely NO reason to be there the next day. Plus, he was seen looking into the van multiple times. When the HO confronted him and told him to leave his property he said no and continued to approach the HO. His intentions were clearly not good.

Had the HO got out his phone and called 911 right away all this would have done is allow the BG to approach even closer. This is not good for a couple reasons 1) it shortens the time you have to react and 2) in this specific situation the door to the house was open. Had the HO been on the phone with 911 instead of focusing on the potential threat he would not have been able to react in time to defend himself and his family. Plus, if the BG overpowers him he can take him inside very easily and now has the family as hostages. Mr. Goforth did EXACTLY what he needed to do and was completely legal in his actions.