TexasCHLforum.com

The law does not allow for things like "he could have a weapon" or "you don't know what his intentions are".

More to the point, it doesn't allow you to use or threaten force or deadly force AFTER an attack is over.

If I gotta take a face slapping you gotta take someone beating on your window. With that said I also gotta say BULLTORK! If you can't at least pull your weapon to stop a possible attack against you then the law is not on our side.

Force is allowed to STOP an attack, not to RETALIATE for one.

Therefore, you DON'T have to "take a face slapping". If you can prevent it, then the law allows you to do so. But that's not what you want. You clearly want to be able to draw on the guy AFTER he slapped your face, whether or not he's still attacking you. As your only justification, you say that there MIGHT be a POSSIBLE attack. That's not sufficient justification under the law.

The law is not hard to understand.

You CAN use force if he's still attacking. (To STOP the attack/protect yourself/prevent injury.)

You CAN'T use force if the attack is over. (Because there's nothing to stop/prevent/protect against.)

In fact, if the attack is clearly over, and THEN you draw your gun, the "slapper" can very likely now draw in turn and shoot you legally in self defense. By drawing, YOU have initiated a NEW deadly force confrontation with YOU as the unlawful aggressor.

txinvestigator,

It becomes terribly unwieldy to type "an attack qualifying for the use of force or the threat of deadly force" every single time. The attack has been well defined as an open-handed slap (or possibly a series of open-handed slaps) and that's what I'm referring to. You are correct that attack is far too generic to be used unless everyone understands what is being referred to.

JohnKSa wrote:
txinvestigator,

It becomes terribly unwieldy to type "an attack qualifying for the use of force or the threat of deadly force" every single time. The attack has been well defined as an open-handed slap (or possibly a series of open-handed slaps) and that's what I'm referring to. You are correct that attack is far too generic to be used unless everyone understands what is being referred to.

I'm with you. It just seems that people are forgetting the difference between DF and non-DF. ;)

The original post in this thread was not about a "single slap to the face", nor even a series of slaps, nor slapping at all. It was about a road rage incident, where the poster was boxed in by traffic and confronted by an angry driver, heading his way and visibly in a state of rage.

Anyone who wouldn't escalate to Orange+ in that situation, and prepare to draw if necessary, is a fool.

Instead of answering the situation as presented, the argument has devolved into hypotheticals. One side is arguing situations where they obviously feel justified to use deadly force, while the other side is making a strawman argument against shooting someone in retaliation for a foppish, insulting slap.

I think it's insulting to reasonable adults to harp on retaliation versus prevention. I don't believe that anyone amongst us would shoot someone in the back who had delivered a slap across the face and then turned to leave. Nor even a punch to the face or blow to the head, if the assailant was turning and leaving.

JohnKSa spoke well about the difference between prevention and retaliation, but this thread did not start out about retaliation at all.

Ask Gordon Hale how many blows to the head is too many. Ask him if it's unreasonable to prepare to use DF when confronted by a visibly angry, huge muscular Samoan while blocked in by traffic on all sides.

The key word in this thread was prepare. Not "draw", not "brandish", not "threaten to use deadly force". No, it was about preparing to use deadly force if necessary in a quickly escalating situation.

Thankfully, traffic conditions allowed the situation to de-escalate quickly.

In the situation as presented in the original post, I'd have prepared to draw too. Anyone who wouldn't prepare is hopelessly in Condition White.

Kevin

txinvestigator wrote:

one eyed fatman wrote:

Show Killer wrote:

JohnKSa wrote: The legal use of force and deadly force are to allow you to PREVENT and PROTECT. Both of those are about stopping something from happening--NOT about retaliating for something that has ALREADY happened.

So, let's go back to my original post that started this thread.

The guy was walking back to my truck, I prepared to draw by gripping my pistol. Had the guy made it to my vehicle and started pounding on the glass I could've drawn down on him, right? I mean, at this point I don't know what his intentions are. Maybe he wants to do me bodily harm, maybe not. By drawing down on him I would be PREVENTING a possible attack. Would I have been in the wrong? Up till now all he would've done was assault my truck, not me.

If I gotta take a face slapping you gotta take someone beating on your window. With that said I also gotta say BULLTORK! If you can't at least pull your weapon to stop a possible attack against you then the law is not on our side. The reason we have trouble understanding the law is because the law is on the side of the lawyers. They want money, they create vague laws, they get to take you to court. That's what it's really about.

Ya'll have to stop using non-specific words like "attack".

You can use deadly force when you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the others use of unlawful deadly force.

You can use a degree of force (not deadly force) when you reasonably believe it is immediately necessary to prevent the other use of unlawful force (not deadly force) against you.

The law does not allow for things like "he could have a weapon" or "you don't know what his intentions are".

Agreed.

KBCraig wrote:The original post in this thread was not about a "single slap to the face", nor even a series of slaps, nor slapping at all. It was about a road rage incident, where the poster was boxed in by traffic and confronted by an angry driver, heading his way and visibly in a state of rage.

Anyone who wouldn't escalate to Orange+ in that situation, and prepare to draw if necessary, is a fool.

Instead of answering the situation as presented, the argument has devolved into hypotheticals. One side is arguing situations where they obviously feel justified to use deadly force, while the other side is making a strawman argument against shooting someone in retaliation for a foppish, insulting slap.

I think it's insulting to reasonable adults to harp on retaliation versus prevention. I don't believe that anyone amongst us would shoot someone in the back who had delivered a slap across the face and then turned to leave. Nor even a punch to the face or blow to the head, if the assailant was turning and leaving.

JohnKSa spoke well about the difference between prevention and retaliation, but this thread did not start out about retaliation at all.

Ask Gordon Hale how many blows to the head is too many. Ask him if it's unreasonable to prepare to use DF when confronted by a visibly angry, huge muscular Samoan while blocked in by traffic on all sides.

The key word in this thread was prepare. Not "draw", not "brandish", not "threaten to use deadly force". No, it was about preparing to use deadly force if necessary in a quickly escalating situation.

Thankfully, traffic conditions allowed the situation to de-escalate quickly.

In the situation as presented in the original post, I'd have prepared to draw too. Anyone who wouldn't prepare is hopelessly in Condition White.

Kevin

Thank You, this is exactly what i'm thinking.

I did not draw, brandish or threaten to use deadly force. I highly doubt the guy even knew I was carrying. In this situation I was merely preparing to draw had the guy continued his approach and actually attacked me.

Now, had the guy made his way back to the truck and actually began attacking me he probably would've seen the business end of the Glock 30 and i'm pretty sure it would've ended there. If he decided after this that he wanted to continue his attack then he probably would've heard a nice big bang.

Either way, i'm glad he came to his senses and turned around.

Now, had the guy made his way back to the truck and actually began attacking me he probably would've seen the business end of the Glock 30 and I'm pretty sure it would've ended there.

That's pretty much what I said about the face slapping and somebody here said I would go to prison for that. Of course I realize the one who said that knows not anymore about the law than I do.

I especially enjoyed the comment made earlier by someone about the law being not that hard to understand. That was funny. I ain't that the law is hard to understand it's just the laws are so vague.

Well, maybe I can contribute a thought or two...

"If" you draw your firearm in reaction to a "reasonable perception" of force, or deadly force threat to you...You very simply have an advantage, depending on what, if anything could be used against you in that regard...

The (tactical, not justified) advantage of presenting your weapon to counter that threat, leaves the decision to the person threatening you to continue...

You may have the tactical advantage, but not the justifiable advantage...

So if you do "draw", you are simply a trigger pull away from the incident being a murder charge against you, or a justifiable self-defensive use of deadly force...

The advantage we have here so far is that we are discussing our personal interpretations about law, human nature, and how potential conflicts are resolved when you put the two subjects together...Whether it be a slap, or someone coming up to you at a stop light weilding a crowbar, or worse a "gun"...In which the latter can be dealt with with the use (not the threat to use) of deadly force as discussed before...

Like I was trying to say before about slapping/hitting etc etc...

You should, but don't take my advise, try to disengage from a slapping or hitting assault...If that does not work, then, in my opinion, you should do what you think might stop the assault with what means you have on hand...That being your decision (or not) to draw and instructing them to stop...At which point, even an "unreasonable" person assaulting you "may", or "may not" stop...

Any decision you make after that, is something that you may have made already...

I figure what we are doing here, at this point, is trying to understand why we would make that decision, and putting it though a legal filter to make sure we got our ducks in a row in that regard...

If anything...I believe another legal seminar, like the one Charles coordinated before, might be something we should try to get going again...

I would think it would be good to try to centralize (geographically) it so many of the folks on the forum who are not in the Houston area could attend...

If I were to throw a dart (as an idea) at a map and hit somewhere around Temple, Texas...

To me knowing the membership distribution, that being about as central to the majority of folks, might be something to consider...

But I'm just full of crazy ideas...

Show Killer wrote:
Thank You, this is exactly what i'm thinking.

I did not draw, brandish or threaten to use deadly force. I highly doubt the guy even knew I was carrying. In this situation I was merely preparing to draw had the guy continued his approach and actually attacked me.

.

Again, you cannot draw on someone who "attacks" you, unless the attack is with deadly force or attempted deadly force.

Thats why I always suggest a gun carrier also have a less lethal means of defense. For me, that is OC.

txinvestigator wrote:

Show Killer wrote:
Thank You, this is exactly what i'm thinking.

I did not draw, brandish or threaten to use deadly force. I highly doubt the guy even knew I was carrying. In this situation I was merely preparing to draw had the guy continued his approach and actually attacked me.

.

Again, you cannot draw on someone who "attacks" you, unless the attack is with deadly force or attempted deadly force.

Again, blows about the head are deadly force, particularly when accompanied by a disparity of size and strength.

Slapping /= Blow to Head

txinvestigator wrote:

Show Killer wrote:
Thank You, this is exactly what i'm thinking.

I did not draw, brandish or threaten to use deadly force. I highly doubt the guy even knew I was carrying. In this situation I was merely preparing to draw had the guy continued his approach and actually attacked me.

.

Again, you cannot draw on someone who "attacks" you, unless the attack is with deadly force or attempted deadly force.

Thats why I always suggest a gun carrier also have a less lethal means of defense. For me, that is OC.

Less than lethal means...

Seems reasonable to me...I've always liked that concept...

If someone continues to press the threat to you after getting a dose of that stuff...Well, I guess that makes it easier or harder (depending on how you look at it) to consider using "deadly force"...

Don't get me wrong, I know some people who would draw at the drop of a hat...And I have told them they are wrong and unreasonable to have that idea...I know others that would probably do nothing...And thusly they would become a statistic...

I believe we balance those two extremes very well, regardless of what we've said in this discussion...

Its that fine line, and trigger pull you can make that changes everything from then on out...

KBCraig wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

Show Killer wrote:
Thank You, this is exactly what i'm thinking.

I did not draw, brandish or threaten to use deadly force. I highly doubt the guy even knew I was carrying. In this situation I was merely preparing to draw had the guy continued his approach and actually attacked me.

.

Again, you cannot draw on someone who "attacks" you, unless the attack is with deadly force or attempted deadly force.

Again, blows about the head are deadly force, particularly when accompanied by a disparity of size and strength.

I do agree.

The law is basically wrote up to be debated and/or argued about. I think everyone here had done a good job of debating and arguing their points. Unfortunately there has been no judge or jury assigned to this thread so I guess everyone will have to walk away with their own ruling on the outcome of this thread.

I guess everyone will have to walk away with their own ruling on the outcome of this thread.

That's as it always is--even when there IS a judge and jury!

Interesting discussion. Thanks, guys