Threshold for legal justification of displaying/drawing
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:08 pm
Gentlemen,
This is my first post to this forum. I hope this is the appropriate group for this.
This post, and my specific inquiry, is based on, and arises from, certain responses to a thread that occurred in another forum site. Here is the background, which I hope you will consider to be sufficient.
BACKGROUND.
The Original Poster was a CHL holder who experienced the following scenario. During early evening hours, he drove to an ATM with his school age (small) daughter.
He parked his mini-van few feet away from the ATM. He got out alone and locked her inside. Immediately upon commencing his transaction he was startled by two men who walked out from beside the building. They walked behind him in a sweeping arc, actively watching him, while he watched them (in mid-ATM transaction). As he watched them, they stopped.
Then, they turned toward him and began to approach. As they closed the distance, one kept his gaze fixed on the OP while the other continued looking every which way, his head constantly swiveling. They immediately drifted apart in a pincer movement.
Upon seeing this, the OP, still in the middle of his transaction, turned to face them. He took one step forward with his offside leg, swiveled his strong side hip 180 degrees from them, and placed his hand on his weapon, but did not draw nor display the weapon to their view. Luckily, the OP's stance and steely resolve sufficiently communicated that he would not go down without a fight, and they departed.
As to the OP, that was the "end of the story". However, boys being boys, we began to "armchair quarterback" what the OP could/should have done HAD THEY KEPT ADVANCING.
From that base line, there were divergent views as to the appropriate point in time and space to properly set the "trip wire" and either draw and display a weapon, or even draw and fire. Because, after all, they COULD have been there (or could have so alleged) that they were there simply to make an ATM withdrawal of their own.
So, during that ongoing discussion, I made the following comment: Quote: "In Texas, as I understand it, I have to "reasonably be in fear for my life".
To this, another participant, (also a Texan and a CHL holder) replied:
Quote: "Yes, but in Texas, it is legal to use force to stop or prevent an unlawful use of force against you. In Texas, the threat of deadly force is not considered to be a use of deadly force, but is considered to be a use of force. So, if you are unlawfully threatened with force, deadly or not, you may threaten deadly force to stop it, which means you can draw and point your weapon. Now, this is where it gets tricky. It has been explained to me that if the threat of deadly force does not stop the unlawful threat or use of force, then the threat becomes deadly as your weapon may be taken and used against you. At that point, you may be "reasonably in fear for your life." I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. You should consult with an attorney for a legal guidance." END QUOTE.
Now, although I am not an attorney, as the result of a 30 year career as a professional court interpreter, I have a better understanding of the law, and the civil and criminal judicial systems than most laymen.
My first question to you all, is this: DOES THAT SOUND CORRECT? Here, I wish to underscore that I am not seeking "legal advice". I'm not even seeking a "definitive" correct answer. Rather, I seek only your informed, thoughtful opinions.
Assuming that you place credence in the quoted comment and that you therefore hold the position that the OP was "reasonably" in fear of death or great bodily harm, and that it was, therefore "reasonable" to draw, then I would ask two subsidiary questions:
a) What should a "reasonably prudent" person have done next? And,
b) Would the OP have been justified to draw and/or fire on them at any point shy of they themselves having produced a "deadly" weapon?
In other words, in your opinions, does current Texas law support the quoted assertion?
If this is not the appropriate section for this thread then I apologize to the moderator.
Sincerely,
Vee Tee
This is my first post to this forum. I hope this is the appropriate group for this.
This post, and my specific inquiry, is based on, and arises from, certain responses to a thread that occurred in another forum site. Here is the background, which I hope you will consider to be sufficient.
BACKGROUND.
The Original Poster was a CHL holder who experienced the following scenario. During early evening hours, he drove to an ATM with his school age (small) daughter.
He parked his mini-van few feet away from the ATM. He got out alone and locked her inside. Immediately upon commencing his transaction he was startled by two men who walked out from beside the building. They walked behind him in a sweeping arc, actively watching him, while he watched them (in mid-ATM transaction). As he watched them, they stopped.
Then, they turned toward him and began to approach. As they closed the distance, one kept his gaze fixed on the OP while the other continued looking every which way, his head constantly swiveling. They immediately drifted apart in a pincer movement.
Upon seeing this, the OP, still in the middle of his transaction, turned to face them. He took one step forward with his offside leg, swiveled his strong side hip 180 degrees from them, and placed his hand on his weapon, but did not draw nor display the weapon to their view. Luckily, the OP's stance and steely resolve sufficiently communicated that he would not go down without a fight, and they departed.
As to the OP, that was the "end of the story". However, boys being boys, we began to "armchair quarterback" what the OP could/should have done HAD THEY KEPT ADVANCING.
From that base line, there were divergent views as to the appropriate point in time and space to properly set the "trip wire" and either draw and display a weapon, or even draw and fire. Because, after all, they COULD have been there (or could have so alleged) that they were there simply to make an ATM withdrawal of their own.
So, during that ongoing discussion, I made the following comment: Quote: "In Texas, as I understand it, I have to "reasonably be in fear for my life".
To this, another participant, (also a Texan and a CHL holder) replied:
Quote: "Yes, but in Texas, it is legal to use force to stop or prevent an unlawful use of force against you. In Texas, the threat of deadly force is not considered to be a use of deadly force, but is considered to be a use of force. So, if you are unlawfully threatened with force, deadly or not, you may threaten deadly force to stop it, which means you can draw and point your weapon. Now, this is where it gets tricky. It has been explained to me that if the threat of deadly force does not stop the unlawful threat or use of force, then the threat becomes deadly as your weapon may be taken and used against you. At that point, you may be "reasonably in fear for your life." I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. You should consult with an attorney for a legal guidance." END QUOTE.
Now, although I am not an attorney, as the result of a 30 year career as a professional court interpreter, I have a better understanding of the law, and the civil and criminal judicial systems than most laymen.
My first question to you all, is this: DOES THAT SOUND CORRECT? Here, I wish to underscore that I am not seeking "legal advice". I'm not even seeking a "definitive" correct answer. Rather, I seek only your informed, thoughtful opinions.
Assuming that you place credence in the quoted comment and that you therefore hold the position that the OP was "reasonably" in fear of death or great bodily harm, and that it was, therefore "reasonable" to draw, then I would ask two subsidiary questions:
a) What should a "reasonably prudent" person have done next? And,
b) Would the OP have been justified to draw and/or fire on them at any point shy of they themselves having produced a "deadly" weapon?
In other words, in your opinions, does current Texas law support the quoted assertion?
If this is not the appropriate section for this thread then I apologize to the moderator.
Sincerely,
Vee Tee
