TexasCHLforum.com

I dunno...

I guess in my middle age, I would prefer "not" to get hit at all...I received and dealt out too many in my immature youth and know that you can be seriously injured by even one good smack...

And the law, as it is now, is pretty clear about definitions and conditions you as a CHL'er are bound to...

So if my damnable act of "reasonably" defending myself with the threat of the use of deadly force...Is not deemed reasonable by the attacker, his legal representation, the DA, etc etc...

Then its a good thing that:

#1 Attacker is alive to have issue against me for it...

#2 I am alive too to illustrate the obsurdity of prosecuting someone who acted reasonably and did everything they could not to use deadly force up to the point of having to threaten that level of force to defend themselves...

I've said this before...I think our community does extremely well under the guidelines and laws of this state...And we have proven ourselves time and time again that we are worthy of a little more trust and credibility, than the average criminal who obviously does not follow the law and chooses to prey on the public...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Just to make sure there is no confusion, if you would be justified in using deadly force to thwart an attack, then you are justified in threatening the use of deadly force by pulling your gun on someone. Just because you can shoot someone, you doesn't mean you have to!

My sentiments exactly...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have spoken to criminal defense attorneys and an ADA in the Galveston County DA's office who had a "round table" with his fellow prosecutors. They believe that the degree of force you can threaten is equal only to the degree of force you would be justified is using. In short, if you can't use deadly force, you can't threaten deadly force, regardless of your motive.

Charles...

I think you know that I believe its great we have the ability to throw issues like this around for discussion...And that your knowledge and ability to take the question to some very credible and knowledgable people is what I enjoy most about our discussions, on and off the forum...

I guess its just my stubborn side that has a slight problem with the last part of that paragraph...If its your opinion, I can certainly understand and appreciate that conclusion, and its obviously nothing personal...

Put me into a situation where I have done everything I can to difuse, de-escalate, remove myself from the encounter, etc. etc...And the person(s) are continuing to demonstrate a threat to me...My last chance that I may consider presenting to them would be to clear the "concealment" of my defensive weapon, and (be prepared) to draw and discharge that weapon to "stop" the continuing attack...

Now if thats not giving an attacker(s) a chance to disengage from their actions against me, I don't know what more it would take...Maybe thats not a proper way to think about issues like this, but I'd like to think that I am always capable of dealing with situations very effectively and decisively...And anything I can do right up to the point of having to decide to defend myself with the use of deadly force becomes almost absurdly moot...

I just can't understand why you would even be called on the carpet for doing everything right up to that point...And no bodies being an issue, that a DA would consider pursuing charges against someone who does everything up to shooting someone, to stop an attack or deadly crime against them...

Almost like the old saying, no harm no foul...A criminal should be counting their blessings that they are still alive to cry about having someone actually having the gall to defend themselves in this manner...

I hope you see my sarcasm, and in no manner am I intending to insult anyones knowledge or experience on this issue...

I actually enjoy where this discussion has led, and that of course this is something everyone needs to really think deep down about and apply to the ever present "mindset"...

Respectfully,
Steve

I went back and read the first post...

And my take is that the "appellant" acted aggressively and escalated the incident...

The fact that he displayed his weapon after enticing the woman to "get out of her vehicle"...Even at that point he was not in anyway to the point he should use deadly force...

It should never have gotten that far...

"Reasonable" people do not act in this manner, and he should have been thoroughly penalized for his part in this incident...

His part in enticing an act of aggression against him should not in anyway been reason for him to warrant a self-defense action on his part...

txinvestigator's senario is totally different from the case file...

I just don't see any of us enticing another person, just so we can draw our weapon and scare them to death...Or hope they are so angry as to continue an attack and we are then forced to shoot that person...To me that is obviously a big no no...And you should be punished for that...

Man, I can't believe how much this pushed my button today...

BTW Charles...

I would love to be able to bring some semblance of what I just wrote to that ADA buddy of yours...

I would approach it from the standpoint of "I am not looking for a blessing of this idea", I am just looking to interject a layman's opinion (view) on a legal discussion to see if it brings about a different take on the conflict...If it really is an issue...

Nor am I trying to make policy either...

If my opinion means anything, I believe we shouldn't be concerned about anyone treading on thin ice where this issue is concerned...

I think we are all well versed in the law...Some of us tend to see how far you could "question" it from time to time, but we are no where near breaking a law by exploring the boundaries of the law...

All the "what ifs" and senario driven incidents we discuss help us give a tangible substantive feel to the issue...I like that aspect of our discussions...

What I fear the most is (and this is my personal fear) that it may harbor a hesitation where none is actually neeeded...

I surely would be remis if everytime I saw three long coated teenagers coming at me and my wife, and being verbally aggressive, not knowing at any second they may actually do something they'll regret for the last .35 seconds of their lives...That I may not actually react quick enough to thwart an attack...

If the criminal element in this country is non-collectively testing the law-abiding citizens of this country...Why should I be afraid if I decide after doing everything that has been discussed so far to deter a possible attack, and that action of mine has not generated the deterrent I require...

Then why should I be afraid to draw my weapon and be very near expelling/repelling an attack with the use of deadly force...

I do not think, and I certainly should be corrected if I am wrong, but the drawing of a firearm (not discharging it at this point) to defend ones self is against the law...If thats what it takes to actually save some poor saps life, and make them think twice before attempting to victimize someone else...Then I think I have done someone a favor...And actually acted within the intent of the law...

If I have to shoot someone because they do not think I have the resolve to "stop" someone in that manner...Well ain't that just a bunch of spilt milk...I don't ever look forward to something like that happening...I have accepted the responsibility, and have also accepted being accountable in all aspects of my actions...I cannot see (but am always open to build upon) anyway to improve on that idea...

I hate to be so verbose in my ruminations, but thats just what I am getting out of all of this...

I'm certainly not condoning drawing a weapon as a first means to ward off a crime against me...But I certainly don't expect to be held liable for drawing on a threat (when I feel it is warranted), and that threat cowering away because their act failed to give them what they expected...

If I am reading too much into this, I would like to know...Y'all just pressed the right button today...