TexasCHLforum.com

JALLEN wrote:Apprehension is not necessarily limited to fear or anxiety about a bad or unpleasant event, but can include understanding or awareness of a fact or situation or circumstance. I think that is most likely the sense the Lege intended, to make someone aware that deadly force was about to be used if they didn't change their ways.

You don't believe that the possibility of the use of deadly force against someone would be cause of fear or anxiety? Or you don't believe that the use of deadly force would be an unpleasant event? Actually, if it wasn't cause for concern, why would the other person be convinced to change their ways?

My only point was that the definition of apprehension as being an arrest was not appropriate. PC9.04 is not talking about a citizen arrest. It is specifically talking about the threat of the use of deadly force. Said threat to convince the other person deadly force will be used if necessary. Whether that information is intended to create fear or anxiety, or merely to inform, is pretty much irrelevant. (IMO)

Midgard Defense wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "apprehension" -- it does NOT mean an arrest. (At least in this case, it doesn't.)

Apprehension: The seizure, taking, or arrest of a person on a criminal charge.

The very first definition is

Anxiety or fear that something bad or unpleasant will happen.

That is the use here. One does not "create" an arrest, one creates anxiety or fear.

Midgard Defense wrote:

Ruark wrote:Midgard, remember that under Texas law, simply displaying or drawing your gun to demonstrate that you will use it if necessary is NOT considered to be deadly force. It is seen as just "force." If the other continues using force towards you after that, it can really put you in a conundrum, especially if he is not openly displaying a weapon.

Actually, displaying your handgun IS deadly force unless you are making a citizen's arrest per the code below.

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

So, unless he is making an apprehension (and I don't see where the drunk in the scenario is breaking a law to justify a citizen's arrest), he may not produce the handgun, legally, unless deadly force is justified.

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "apprehension" -- it does NOT mean an arrest. (At least in this case, it doesn't.)