TexasCHLforum.com

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:

KingofChaos wrote: I've seen many a fight were one guy admits defeat, the winner turns to walk away and is hit in the back of the head. Personally, I only stop when the other person is unconscious or in so much pain that they can't get up and continue(broken limb). Don't want that treatment, don't attack me.

I am not advocating fighting or putting people in a hospital. There is a difference between beating someone and defending yourself. If someone attacks you and you must fight to defend yourself the so be it. However, once the attack stops so should the fight from your end. Only if the attacker is still attacking would you be in fear for your life and in turn legally able to continue to defend yourself. IMO to continue if you are not being attacked anymore or no longer in fear for your life would bring you up on criminal charges.

Also directed at suthdj

I entirely understand the section in the penal code about being able to abandon conflicts, and if I sincerely thought the person was going to stop, so would I. But if I still have reason to believe that they're going to continue, then so would I. Also, I'm not really talking about a savage beating. Against an untrained opponent, incapacitation can occur rather quickly without too many blows getting thrown. Which is why given a choice against an untrained opponent, and no chance of his friends stomping on my head, I'd always rather grapple than stand and strike with them. They'll look prettier once it's over, and they can be unconscious rather quickly without any permanent effects. I'm not advocating maliciously hurting people, but I do think you should end violent encounters in the most efficient way possible. Which is also why in a potentially deadly encounter, I'd grab my pistol before the knife that's right next to it.

I've seen many a fight were one guy admits defeat, the winner turns to walk away and is hit in the back of the head. Personally, I only stop when the other person is unconscious or in so much pain that they can't get up and continue(broken limb). Don't want that treatment, don't attack me.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

I've seen a few examples floating around, however, my personal use of deadly force ROE revolves around 3 criteria I believe to be in accordance with the law, and common sense, all of which must be met before I would use deadly force: 1)intent 2)ability 3)immediacy.

The "scenario" or "circumstances" do NOT matter to me, simply because the criteria is either met, or it isn't. Period. So be it one or more individuals, with or without weapons, youths, a gang of homicidal senior citizens, escaped monkeys, or whatever, either the criteria is met, or it is not. If the criteria is met, I will use deadly force to stop the threat, and if not, I won't.

Intent displayed to cause unlawful death or serious bodily injury?
- Verbal threats, hostile physical actions, predatory behaviors.
Ability to carry out the intent?
-Size/strength, numbers, use of tools / weapons
Immediacy
-Do I need to use deadly force NOW to stop the threat?
-Is it too late to escape, avoid, use less than lethal force, or use a barrier to stop the threat?

If the answer to all of the above is yes, then I feel confident in being able to justify the use of deadly force to stop a threat, regardless of scenario.

How do you determine if the use of force is unlawful without considering the circumstances? It's easy if you're the victim, but what if it's a 3rd party?

Westfield wrote:haos » Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:53 pm
But what if the mob is beating the snot out of defenseless people like they did in Wisconsin ? What should our rersponse if any be ?

I agree with everything that that Xtremeduty just said. I am also of the opinion that shooting at a mob will only get you bum-rushed, and I am only willing to intervene in conflicts where I think I have the tactical advantage, or in which I feel me not intervening would haunt me for the rest of my life(some mad gunman mowing down people). Also, he brings up a very good point in not knowing who the actual BG is. Honestly, that makes me very wary to get involved in conflicts at all, because my biggest fear with becoming involved is getting shot about someone else with a CHL. Most BGs don't practice and can't shoot to save their lives. LEO will more than likely orally address you and tell you to drop the weapon before opening fire, giving you a chance to explain. I feel like many CHL carriers would make a split decision based on the scene in front of them and just start shooting. I am, after all, a young minority with a gun. The oddest are heavily in favour of me being a BG, not a GG and opening fire would probably be the right decision most times. This forum tends to be propagated with individuals who take their CHL seriously and who put more time, effort, and thought into carrying and what they'd do. I don't think many members here would make that sort of mistake. Other people who I've met who carry don't seem to have taken these steps, and may very well get me killed.

@XtremeDuty.45

Well maybe I wasn't clear, he does ask for when he legally can use deadly force. And I guess my simplified response would actually be a question. If one of these mobs isn't attacking you or robbing you, why would you WANT to use deadly force in the first place? I don't think you legally could, and I don't logically see why you would want to.

Well this wasn't in Texas, but I think it's worth mentioning none the less.
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=108&t=46149

CCW holder is attacked at a gas station by 2 BGs and it seems that the DA determined that the inequality of numbers combined with assault was enough to constitute being threatened with deadly force since charges weren't filed. I feel like the same would occur here in Texas. If you're getting attacked by double digit, or high single digit BGs, I feel it is quite reasonable to be in fear of your life. Furthermore, if one of them did have a weapon, how could you possible tell with fist and feet flying from every direction. I just think this would fall well into the "or reason to believe" category of the deadly force criteria.