TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:

Couldn't agree more. In my initial reading of the OP a few days back, it seemed like it was a contest of sorts.


To the OP, how you have handled the situation if you had know that you did not have a weapon, other than your words?

I did answer that question earlier in these posts :-) I wouldnt have done anything differently.

I have had some time to reflect on the event (and appreciate TAM's and a few others responses) and I can say now that they were actually out looking for trouble.

I had actually gotten into the self checkout line and as I was checking things out is when the event unfolded. I latered realized something, none of them were actually buying anything....which leads me to the conclusion that they were out to cause problems.

To reexplain the cart incident, he grabbed the cart in an effort to move it out of the way to get to me(I assume)I grabbed the cart to create a barrier and create distance.

I am glad that there are some that will be able to benefit from this experience. I will say that I am a little surprised at some of the responses , but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

lonewolf wrote:I tried to submit this a minute ago, but can't find it...

Just curious, what would you have done had you not been armed? Would you have acted/reacted any differently, knowing that there were four of them?

I have found in my hours on this forum many members mentioning how they have altered their behaviors knowing the terminal responsibility they have accepted as a part of their lives. Not engaging idiot drivers, just reporting to LEO....things of that nature.

I wouldn't have done anything different (except for changing my body direction and putting my hand near my gun). Like I mentioned earlier, I am wired to do the "right" thing, help old ladies across the street, help people in need, etc. I have been asking people not to have potty mouths for a long time (just got a mental image of a tshirt reading "keeping people from being potty mouths since 1972" )

I will say that I have become more aware of my surroundings since I got my chl. I do threat assessments and things like that. If anything it has made me a "harder" person in that I am not as nice to people anymore.

so, in short, I would have asked the guy to please not use that language around my son, I still would have got between the bad guy and my son, I still would have grabbed the cart to use it as a barrier, I still would have bit my lip instead of responding (to descalate).

I am trying to teach my son right from wrong. After the encounter, we both sat down and he DID learn something. That not every confrontation will involve a firefight, he doesnt have to resort to violence, but needs to be ready at all times (how quickly everything happened). He learned what it was like to be the bigger person and walk away. I have told him these things a million times, but he did get to experience it and it has made a positive impression on him.

Also, we both have a background in martial arts and he was under the impression that I am bruce lee or something. Our instructors and I have tried to impress on him (and our 5yr old) that just because you CAN do something, doesnt mean that you do. if at all possible "walk away" in the sense that you dont become the aggressor. He also got a confirming lesson....that there ARE bad people in this world that look for trouble.

kahrfreak wrote:Another option: Simply walk away and shop somewhere else. On the way out, let mgmt. know that you don't appreciate your son being subject to that type of behavior. I've done this before. I simply choose not to engage myself in confrontations unless absolutely necessary, especially when armed.

All this stuff about reasonable belief doesn't counter the fact that if you shoot someone over a verbal altercation, you will most certainly find yourself at trial.

your quote about shooting someone over a verbal altercation is the thing I find issue with, by this logic, then the only time you would shoot someone is if you were being physically attacked....meaning that you were actually being hit before you shot. quite frankly, at that point, its too late to shoot.

If the guy would have removed the cart as my barrier, I would have felt that the physical attack was imminent and shot him. If he wanted to run his mouth, I wouldnt have shot him.

WOW!!! Enjoy all of the comments and especially appreciates TAM's response.

I was a little taken aback by Petecamp's statement:

My opinion here, but you seem way too eager to pull your weapon and shoot someone. Consider carefully the terrible consequences of a "bad shoot." That is a far more painful lesson for your son to learn than anything he might have experienced that day. I have seen the aftermath of far too many gunfights, and almost without exception it is bad, very bad. If you have to shoot, be as sure as you can that you are in the right and try as hard as humanly possible to avoid it.

Eager to pull my weapon?? Eager?!?!?!? Are you kidding me? I look back on this event and the things that flashed through my mind was not one of "eagerness". I was realizing the consequences of this blowhard's actions could cause him his life if he were to advance on me. Where do you find "eager" in this situation.

I am wired to do the "right thing", which is help little old ladies across the street, help a hurt person, etc. I was this way before I had a CHL, the only difference is that I am licensed to carry a gun.

I have asked people to watch their language around not only my kids but other peoples' (even before I had children) kids. the NORM is not to have a potty mouth in public. I am not naive and think the kids wont hear it. By that logic, if people are showing pornography in front of my or other peoples' kids, then I should just "deal" with it so as not to cause a confrontation. That just doesnt make sense.

I politely asked the guy to "please watch your language around my son". It was a request. I didnt say "hey, you moron, shut up before I use my 1911 on you!!!". When this guy got agressive, my method of descalating was to ignore him and not respond to him (using the same logic in a road rage exchange....you simply ignore the person). When he grabbed the cart, he was trying to push it out of the way. I grabbed the cart to keep it between him and I as a barrier. I had my son there with me and was trying to also keep between him and the guy.

During this, I turned my right side towards him and my left was away (which is where my gun is). He had no idea (and I wasnt going to give him an idea) of that.

I did swallow my pride. I didnt do the "manly" staredown, I didnt take the cart and push it back at him, I didnt call him a pottymouth, I didnt shove the gun in his face. I did walk away from the encounter. I dont see where the "eager" comment comes in, but maybe I wasnt clear enough with what happened.

What I will say is that I will be reading/learning more about force and when I can use it. It does seem like the law is slanted against us average guys and that needs to be changed.

maybe mr cotton can make his seminars available on mp3. :-)

I am glad that everyone has made comments on this. It has given me some things to think about. I have actually thought about carrying pepper spray/taser....but I'll be honest, the 1911 is about all these britches can hold up

G26ster wrote:

dewayneward wrote:thanks for the posts. I do appreciate the discussion. I have read and reread the information and I am just shocked at what is covered and what isnt. I am surprised that assault is not covered. I passed the test, listened to the instructor. I know that I cant (and shouldnt) pull my gun on a loudmouth. I know that I should de-escalate, but I see a glaring hole in the law.

Forgive the crudeness here(doing it for effect), but I can whack a punk for stealing my stereo (at night), but I cant shoot a guy that is getting ready to punch me? that just makes no sense to me. Why isnt assault not one of the things you can defend against?

I asked the very same question a while back on the forum. I believe that assault (in my case of a senior citizen) beats, say robbery, any day of the week, and should be in PC 9.32. My main point was to remind you of the law as currently written, and hopefully prevent a good guy from ruining his life.

Ok, so what needs to be done in order to change this?? I mean, I am getting nutty just thinking about it. I cant for the life of me think that whoever was writing the law didnt go "d-uh, assault should be in there".

Really though, I hope that Mr Cotton drops in and provides a quick link or something to tell me how to get assault added to the list of things I can defend against. It has made me rethink a few things. I am not a hothead and looking for trouble. Even if I was standing there minding my own business and all this went down, I would still be in the wrong if I drew my weapon. This guy could whack on me and I still, legally, couldnt shoot him. It makes no sense and I really think that the law needs to be updated.

thanks for the posts. I do appreciate the discussion. I have read and reread the information and I am just shocked at what is covered and what isnt. I am surprised that assault is not covered. I passed the test, listened to the instructor. I know that I cant (and shouldnt) pull my gun on a loudmouth. I know that I should de-escalate, but I see a glaring hole in the law.

Forgive the crudeness here(doing it for effect), but I can whack a punk for stealing my stereo (at night), but I cant shoot a guy that is getting ready to punch me? that just makes no sense to me. Why isnt assault not one of the things you can defend against?

G26ster wrote:

dewayneward wrote:

G26ster wrote:OP - I'm curious. What would the guy who put his hand on the cart have to do for you to draw your weapon and fire, while you were between him and your son?

Going back to this scenario, I was close, so I can say that had that cart ceased to be a barrier or it got more aggressive, I would have pulled my gun and depending on the reaction, stopped him (and depending on the circumstances) his friends.

When you say "stopped him" I have to assume you would have used your drawn gun as something other than a thrown object. So then I assume you consider aggressive behavior (removing the cart and raising his hands), as "deadly force" against you? I think if that is the case, I don't believe you would be covered by PC 9.32, as nothing short of the other persons use or attempted use of deadly force would warrant your action under the law. Again, just MHO.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

I am glad that we are able to discuss this as I would hate to make a mistake that would have long standing consequences. It does get interesting with what was quoted. Based on this, I need to be beaten up before I can use deadly force....and quite frankly I can take a beating so even if he beat me up, I really shouldnt defend myself because I would survive the attack (he'd probably only punch me a few times). and I couldnt shoot him afterwards since he had broken off the attack.

This just doesnt sit well with me. With what I have read, I am in a no win situation and, legally, should try to find someone to purchase my guns.

Really the only time I can see when I can use my gun is if the other person pulls a gun first. i dnt know, this just doesnt sound right to me. I gotta be missing something.

G26ster wrote:

dewayneward wrote:

G26ster wrote:OP - I'm curious. What would the guy who put his hand on the cart have to do for you to draw your weapon and fire, while you were between him and your son?

Going back to this scenario, I was close, so I can say that had that cart ceased to be a barrier or it got more aggressive, I would have pulled my gun and depending on the reaction, stopped him (and depending on the circumstances) his friends.

When you say "stopped him" I have to assume you would have used your drawn gun as something other than a thrown object. So then I assume you consider aggressive behavior (removing the cart and raising his hands), as "deadly force" against you? I think if that is the case, I don't believe you would be covered by PC 9.32, as nothing short of the other persons use or attempted use of deadly force would warrant your action under the law. Again, just MHO.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

I am glad that we are able to discuss this as I would hate to make a mistake that would have long standing consequences. It does get interesting with what was quoted. Based on this, I need to be beaten up before I can use deadly force....and quite frankly I can take a beating so even if he beat me up, I really shouldnt defend myself because I would survive the attack (he'd probably only punch me a few times). and I couldnt shoot him afterwards since he had broken off the attack.

This just doesnt sit well with me. With what I have read, I am in a no win situation and, legally, should try to find someone to purchase my guns.

Really the only time I can see when I can use my gun is if the other person pulls a gun first. i dnt know, this just doesnt sound right to me. I gotta be missing something.

G26ster wrote:OP - I'm curious. What would the guy who put his hand on the cart have to do for you to draw your weapon and fire, while you were between him and your son?

honestly, not sure, he was trying to remove the cart as a barrier between he and I (I am assuming that he wasnt wanting to shake hands with me).

This gets into an interesting area, because armchairing this is one thing, but there in the middle of it, I think that if he had raised his hands that would have been it for me and I would have defended myself and stopped him.

This is where it gets interesting, what needs to happen in order for someone to use their gun? Do you actually need to be hit in order to respond with force? This is a disadvantage of having a gun, there really arent any other "defenses" that you can do with a gun on you (at least that i am aware of).

I have asked the same question myself and it boils down to "you better guess right". I cant get a clear cut answer. Sure, you can read the law, but then it becomes that whole "reasonable person" argument. For some people, even if you get hit, pushed, etc., it isnt enough to make them defend themselves.

Going back to this scenario, I was close, so I can say that had that cart ceased to be a barrier or it got more aggressive, I would have pulled my gun and depending on the reaction, stopped him (and depending on the circumstances) his friends.

Oldgringo wrote:

dewayneward wrote:

@ Old Gringo, are you thinking that I should have just let the guy cuss?

Yep. Your kid has written that he knows the words and that he knows they are not nice words. Were these words not heard on your TV in your house? I have to agree with Carry-a-Kimber, you over-reacted to the rude, boorish behavior of an immature, self-aggrandizing and perhaps misbegotten {person}. A CHL is not a Batman's license.

IANAL; however, I do have to report for jury duty next month. Good luck and God Bless.

Those words arent/werent said in our house on tv or otherwise. I have a filter on the tv that removes those words from tv programming, but I understand what you are trying to say. I dont agree that people should just be allowed to be potty mouths. I am not sure about the batman license and how this situation relates. I guess it is a difference between us (from what I gather from your other posts), you have previously commented that you wouldnt help someone else (using deadly force) if they were being attacked, etc. I am just not wired that way. While I am not going to go out of my way to get in the middle of something because I have a CHL (or even if I didnt), I just cant sit idly by while things like this happen.

maybe I need to get rewired :-)

jamisjockey wrote:FWIW, IMHO, carrying a gun that has a manual safety in condition 0 is irresponsible.
Condition Four: Chamber empty, no magazine, hammer down.
Condition Three: Chamber empty, full magazine in place, hammer down.
Condition Two: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer down.
Condition One: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety on.
Condition Zero: A round chambered, full magazine in place, hammer cocked, safety off.

how is carrying a gun that has a manual safety in condition zero irresponsible?????? I really do want to know because I have assumed for quite awhile that it is perfectly fine to carry my gun in condition zero? Now, mind you, I own a 1911 and carry it in a kholster IWB. The kydex covers the trigger. The only way for it to go off is if the back plate on the grip AND the trigger are pulled at the same time. Am I trusting my gun too much? Should I rethink my carry condition? I dont want to be irresponsible, but I trust my gun and saw nothing wrong with condition zero? What, in your experience has shown you not to carry that way???

@ Old Gringo, are you thinking that I should have just let the guy cuss? I am guessing so and that is the only "my fault" that I can really think of. I dont see how this and the costco event have anything to do with each other (outside of them occuring at shopping places). The costco guy got made and it was a bad chain of events that led to him being shot. had something happened with me, it would be just like any other shooting thattook place around a bunch of people that anyone could have experienced.

OldSchool wrote:Sounds as if you handled it well. More and more people like that around (wannabe bullies). I never tolerated cussing around my family, ever.

dewayneward wrote: Something that I have learned....people that dont carry condition 0 (and I'll argue 1) need to leave their gun at home.

OK, if you say so. I don't like condition 0, so I guess I'll leave it at home from now on.

hi old school. When you carry, what condition do you "roll" in? I dont make my "condition 0 or arguably 1" comment lightly. But, in a self defense scenario, do you think that you would be able to (assuming condition 2 here, timelines extend as you move up to 3 and 4, etc.) rack the slide (assuming a semi auto).

This scenario really has shown me that 0 is the only way to go. The only reason I can think of in carrying in any other condition is that you dont trust the gun to keep from AD'ing. I use to be the same way, like the gun was going to go off in my hand or something, but over time, I got to the point. In today's incident, I was condition 0, as usual, and with how close the guy and his friends were, I wouldnt have had time to do anything else, including flipping off the safety.

There are a number of videos out there, but it is a repeated fact that it takes a normal person only a few seconds to get to you from 21 ft away. This guy was 3 ft. Of course you have to do what is right in your mind and what you feel comfortable with, but a gun that isnt able to immediately stop a threat is useless (unless it scares the person). Dont believe me, try to do a test on how long it takes to draw and present to a threat coming at you that wants to do damage. THEN (after you discover the timing isnt even close) compound that by stress of the encounter, tunnel vision , making sure your child is safe, etc.

well im his 9 in a half quarter son.i think dad did the good thing.the man was vary fat lol. the man had four friends we were in the slide and check line.and this man looked at my dads new shaver.i bet if he said this to a marine he would be mad :mad.i have seen pg 13 movies but wow that dude was saying R rated movies.he was trying to make himself look like he was the center of atenchen.he said im a marine and when im not killing enyone im shaving my friends face. by the way my grandpa was in the navy .my dad said he was just thinking about it but he stared at the shaver so he wanted to start something. but first i went to my favorite card game pokemon and this was before it startid but thats when i got thare thats what it was.i had a vison this didnt happened though i thout the dude was gonna smash my dads face into the cart.good thing he didnt . and whene he said the f bomb dad told him not to use it.and gave him the stare.i thout it would end like this .but. when we finished it checking out we walked to our car and we drove to our house safely being shure to not tell daniel my little brother.and thares my opinyon. thank you for reading


My oldest son decided to weigh in on the situation :-)

I was thinking up till a comment that my son made that these guys were just talking smack and then I made a big deal about it. My son told me that the ringleader had looked into my cart and was making fun of my new shaver. In retrospect, I am now more inclined to think that they were wanting to start something.

Well, glad it ended well. I do appreaciate everyone's comments. I think we can all agree, carry 24/7 and be ready ALL THE TIME!!!

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:I'm probaly not going to be the most popular guy around for saying this but.......I would have to say he has as much right to practice his 1st Amendment as you have to practice your 2nd Amendment. I don't use profanity around the kids, in public, or that much in general; however, it is not my job to tell someone else the type of language they can use in public. If a friend or family member chooses to use that type of language in my house around my kids, I would tell them not to IN MY HOUSE. Otherwise, I would take it as an opportunity to teach my child that that type of language is reserved for adults and not appropriate for children. I don't think putting your hand on your piece was out of line given the confrentation, if it had escalated you need every second to count and having your hand at the ready would increase your odds if things went South.

Actualy, what he said was not a right for 1st amendment. I appreciate the other stuff you write here, but the statement w/1st amendment is wrong. Logically, if that were the case, then he would not be in violation of the penal code that an earlier poster made. Plus, it isnt a 1st amendment thing to go into a movie theatre and yell fire.

I do wholeheartedly agree with where I put my hand during it. I really think that it could have gone south real quick. Thankfully, he decided not do to anything with the cart situation.

thanks for the responces. My "diffusion" was not to enter into anymore discussion with this person and ignore him. I wasnt going to get into a "stare down" with this guy as that would be a "stare down" scenario fuled by testosterone. My objective was met in that he stopped cussing.

I'd have to ask you, the next time you are at a store that has shopping carts, to see the distance between you and someone that is on the other end of the cart. It was "my" cart at the time and it was a barrier between me and him. Had the cart not have been there, I dont really have any doubts that he would have got up "in my space".

You know that it takes less than a few seconds for someone to get 21 ft...this guy was much closer and was upset. This is an area that I have to disagree with the law on...its almost like you have to be attacked FIRST before you can defend yourself...and then the law prohibits you from doing something AFTER the attack happens. Its like you need to respond WHILe you are being attacked or something.


G26ster, I appreciate your advice, and I'll probably agree that a jury would have issues with me if I drew my weapon....I just dont think that is right. This guy was 3 ft away from me. If he wanted to hit me, he could have before I drew my weapon. It gets into that "when can I draw". I dont want to shoot some blowhard, but I dont want to get hurt.

As far as calling 911, I dont see that happening during something like this. You are standing there with some guy and you really think you'll be able to call 911....do you think that that will deescalate the situation?