TexasCHLforum.com

Approximately a year and ½ ago, a colleague of mine (also a CHL holder) was driving down the road. The vehicle in front of him must have thought my colleague was tailgating as he began slamming on the brakes in an attempt to get my colleague to rear end him. At his earliest opportunity, my colleague moved to the other lane and went around the guy. At the next intersection, my colleague got into the left turn lane and was the third vehicle from the light. The guy that was slamming on the brakes was the fourth car at the light and was in the straight lane next to the lane my colleague was in. My colleague looked in his rear view mirror to see this guy exit from his vehicle and approached my colleague’s vehicle.

With this, my colleague grabbed and un-holstered his weapon as he could not see the guys hands. As the guy approached my colleague’s window, with the weapon pointing down towards the passenger seat, he cracked the window and told the guy not to come any closer and asked to see his hands. The guy did not comply and drew closer. My colleague then told the guy that he had a gun in the car and that he did not want the guy to force him to shoot. The guy got all the way to the window, saw the gun, and basically said that my colleague was not dumb enough to shoot him. The guy then asked my colleague for his name to which he refused. The guy said that he did not need his name because he had his license plate number. The light turned green and my colleague took off. The guy never touched the vehicle or anything.

Approximately two minutes later, the police pulled my colleague over and as you can imagine the police had guns drawn, had him out of the vehicle and in cuffs. The other guy was following my colleague until he was pulled over and then took off.

My colleague told me that the only reason he drew his weapon (although never pointing it at the guy) is because he did not want to be at a tactical disadvantage in case the guy had a weapon and my colleague was sitting in a vehicle and unable to retreat.

At the scene, the three cops were not sure if any laws were violated and decided to take statements from both parties (they had to call and track down the other guy) and leave it up to the Williamson County DA. My colleague was released at the scene and was never booked. The next day my colleague called a friend of his who happens to be an assistant DA for Williamson County. His friend told my colleague that he would make a few calls to see what is going on. Nothing ever came of it.

Sorry for the long story but here is my question. In your opinion, were laws violated? What would you have done in this scenario? I do not know if nothing became of it because no laws were violated or if it was dropped because of the call to the assistant DA.

In my opinion, I think it may be reasonable to draw a weapon because my colleague was at a tactical disadvantage if the guy had a weapon. What I would have done differently is I believe I would have tried to have been the first one to call the police.

I don't know that any laws were violated... but this could sure be used as a tactical training tool. What not to do type of thing.

Although everyone went home with the same number of holes that they started with so you have to count it a win.

Looking at it from a legal or a tactical standpoint you get different answers.

Legally he was on shaky ground. He could have been in trouble. Others have gotten in trouble. Tactically... having the gun ready was smart.

Glad it worked out okay for him.

It would be interesting to see if the Castle Doctrine laws changed the view on this on this one. I think you would legally have a full right to have your gun drawn in the vehicle, no different than in your home.

I've been in this situation. It's scary, no two ways about it. Every time, I was able to drive away.

Someone in a rage approaching your vehicle is a threat, but IMHO it does not justify the use of force. With force not being justified, displaying a weapon is not justified. It could be argued that the person committed the offense of failing to conceal (PC §46.035).

I'm glad the police and DA had the common sense to drop the issue.

Just being philosophical here ... It's unfortunate that we have to give the benefit of the doubt to obvious bad actors until they present an immediate threat, but the alternative could be avoidable escalation of violence. I don't know what the best solution is.

- Jim

Keith B wrote:It would be interesting to see if the Castle Doctrine laws changed the view on this on this one. I think you would legally have a full right to have your gun drawn in the vehicle, no different than in your home.

I think not. If you read PC 46.02, it allows you to have a handgun in your home without restriction; but in a vehicle, a handgun must be concealed.

- Jim

The problem is that people seem to think that anytime they tick off another person who then approaches them, their handgun is some magic tool.

I see this exact scenario over and over. A traffic altercation, of course, I did nothing wrong and did nothing to antagonize the other driver, the other guy approaches me on foot. So I pull my gun, prepared to use deadly force, or at least scare the other guy, who has done nothing but walk towards my car.

seamusTX wrote:

Keith B wrote:It would be interesting to see if the Castle Doctrine laws changed the view on this on this one. I think you would legally have a full right to have your gun drawn in the vehicle, no different than in your home.

I think not. If you read PC 46.02, it allows you to have a handgun in your home without restriction; but in a vehicle, a handgun must be concealed.

- Jim

Forgot it had the concealed verbiage in the staute. Thanks Jim.

I'm really on the fence with this one. I understand that the weapon must be concealed but it’s not like my colleague had the weapon up in the line of sight. It was down below the windows and pointed towards the passenger seat. Others at the intersection never saw the weapon. The only reason why the aggressor saw the weapon was because he walked right up to the window. I also have the opinion that one could argue the reasonableness to draw in the situation as we all know that road rage and etc can potentially be very ugly. Also knowing what had occurred just moments before I think it is reasonable to assume that the aggressor might be angered enough to become confrontational, angry enough to exit a vehicle at an intersection to confront a perfect stranger. I would argue that because of the actions just prior to stopping at the intersection that the act of exiting his vehicle, the aggressor made me feel threatened. How angry would you have to be to exit a vehicle to confront someone because they were tailgating you? Is that the act of a reasonable person? I get angry when people cut me off and etc in traffic, but would I ever exit my vehicle to confront someone, NO!

Sometimes, when driving alone, I will put my pistol on the seat next to me and place a hand towel or hat over it. This makes it extremely accessible but is still concealed enough that if I am in a parking lot and someone walks by and looks into the window they have no idea that there is a pistol on the seat.

I just don’t know.

Pt145ss, I understand how you feel, but the law is what it is, and the police enforce it the way they did with your colleague.

- Jim

I think the key is that as soon as the "antagonizer" (and I use the quotes to emphasize TxI's very valid point) walked back to his car, the "victim" should have called the cops.
he who calls first, is then the victim.
right or wrong, that's the best way to handle the "after action" portion.

now, talking about what he did right/wrong, well, I have to get back to work...

seamusTX wrote:Pt145ss, I understand how you feel, but the law is what it is, and the police enforce it the way they did with your colleague.

- Jim

Yeah, I know you guys are right. I think the police handled it the best way they know how. I think taking statements and releasing him was the best thing to do. This way there was no booking but they could come back with a warrent if the DA did decide to push it later.

pt145ss wrote:Sometimes, when driving alone, I will put my pistol on the seat next to me and place a hand towel or hat over it. This makes it extremely accessible but is still concealed enough that if I am in a parking lot and someone walks by and looks into the window they have no idea that there is a pistol on the seat.

I just don’t know.

Bad idea. If you have to take evasive action, slam on the brakes or get into an accident that handgun will go flying.

txinvestigator wrote:The problem is that people seem to think that anytime they tick off another person who then approaches them, their handgun is some magic tool.

I see this exact scenario over and over. A traffic altercation, of course, I did nothing wrong and did nothing to antagonize the other driver, the other guy approaches me on foot. So I pull my gun, prepared to use deadly force, or at least scare the other guy, who has done nothing but walk towards my car.

Think about it from the perspective of law enforcement. You're in a car, somebody approaches your vehicle, refuses to show their hands and refuses to comply when you ask them to stay were they are. Would you draw or put distance between them and you - or both. As a civilian at a stop light, it would be tough to move the car.

seamusTX wrote:Pt145ss, I understand how you feel, but the law is what it is, and the police enforce it the way they did with your colleague.

- Jim

The police didn't enforce any laws. They conducted an investigation and forwarded the info to the DA. I would say that it's safe to assume that since his friend was never indicted that the DA decided that he hadn't violated any laws.