Good point.
What level if 'failure to conceal'?
Search found 2 matches
Return to “If you can't shoot it, don't show it!”
- Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:58 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: If you can't shoot it, don't show it!
- Replies: 68
- Views: 18589
- Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:48 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: If you can't shoot it, don't show it!
- Replies: 68
- Views: 18589
force vs. deadly force
Apparently, this is an example of bad facts making bad (case) law.
Interesting that 46.035 only applies to CHL's. We can be prosecuted but non-CHL's cannot. I guess, in this instance, we could be held to a higher standard.
As to the scenarios, TXInvestigator's 3 aggressors - I think that would justify deadly force - 46.035 is met.
As to Chas. getting slapped in a restaurant, 9.04 would protect him, clearly he is justified in using force. ( I disagree w/TX that there are 'levels' of force, there are only two - force and deadly force.) However, 46.035 would bite him in the butt because he is clearly not justified in using deadly force.
In the road rage instance, would 9.04 even be applicable? Would the CHL be justified in using force (not deadly force) against the woman that got out of her car and mouthed at him? Aren't we taught (and tested) that 'verbal aggression alone does not justify the use of force'?
Would the parking lot incident justify force?
This has been interesting. I have never considered 9.04 and 46.035 together.
Hopefully, TX will pass a Castle Doctrine law and make this moot.
Interesting that 46.035 only applies to CHL's. We can be prosecuted but non-CHL's cannot. I guess, in this instance, we could be held to a higher standard.
As to the scenarios, TXInvestigator's 3 aggressors - I think that would justify deadly force - 46.035 is met.
As to Chas. getting slapped in a restaurant, 9.04 would protect him, clearly he is justified in using force. ( I disagree w/TX that there are 'levels' of force, there are only two - force and deadly force.) However, 46.035 would bite him in the butt because he is clearly not justified in using deadly force.
In the road rage instance, would 9.04 even be applicable? Would the CHL be justified in using force (not deadly force) against the woman that got out of her car and mouthed at him? Aren't we taught (and tested) that 'verbal aggression alone does not justify the use of force'?
Would the parking lot incident justify force?
This has been interesting. I have never considered 9.04 and 46.035 together.
Hopefully, TX will pass a Castle Doctrine law and make this moot.