TexasCHLforum.com

austinrealtor wrote: Rebel I hope I too am not taking your statements out of context, because of the most part I agree with you. I just don't agree with leaving out there any idea that merely "a few punches thrown" could never be enough to justify a deadly force response. A single punch can and has killed people, even someone of roughly the same size/age etc as the puncher. It happens. Now the caveat to all of this is usually it happens in response to other provocation, argument etc. that could make the person who uses deadly force look like the bad guy. As you alluded to, it will likely cost you plenty to get free and clear of shooting somoene who was punching or attempting to punch you. All gets back to reasonableness as almost any discussion of force/deadly force will do.

But just as it's not reasonable to say "a punch alone is enough to justify shooting someone" it's also not reasonable to say "a punch alone is NOT enough to justify shooting someone"

If someone walks up to me, unprovoked, and attempts to land a haymaker on my head, I WILL pull my weapon (if I'm capable of doing so) and if they don't immediately back off I WILL shoot them. I will also be justified. I am justified because a single punch to the head is "capable of causing death or serious bodily injury" [quote directly from PC 9.01(3) definition of deadly force]. My justification is found PC 9.32(a)(2)(A) "to protect against unlawful use or attempted use of deadly force". You are right that I do not get the "presumed reasonableness" I would have with more obvious justifications to prevent murder, rape, aggravated kidnapping etc, but I will take my chances that either the police, the prosecutor, or the jury will find my reaction to stop this unprovoked assault reasonable to an immediate and unproked threat to my life.

And that's all I'm saying. If I "get into a fight" with someone, then I've lost my justifiation to use deadly force. I've willingly entered a fist fight. That's different.

I just don't like the idea floating around out there that as long as an attacker only use his fists, he has no fear of a legally justified deadly force response to his attack. It just isn't so.

billv wrote:

Rebel wrote:. How was your life in danger? What would you have done if he had taken a swing at you? You know getting into a scuffle with an individual and being punched doesn't justify drawing of your weapon.

It doesn't? It depends on who's swinging the punch. It is possible to be killed by a single punch. If I were to get into a scuffle with one of the rather large gentlemen that works out at at my gym, I don't think I'd fare well. They'd crunch me up like an empty beer can.

It depends on if you felt your life or limb is in danger.

I'm not defending the OP here. He shouldn't have escalated the situation with the middle finger, and drawing the firearm was a further escalation. He should be able to get witnesses of the workers at the car wash for the OP's and the other guys demeanor. From what was described, that would be enough for me (acting as DA) to drop any change (if any) and perhaps have a private talk with both actors.

baldeagle wrote:

Rebel wrote:

baldeagle wrote:See that right there, he had a tire iron a.k.a. WEAPON!!! Purely justified. Look at the video link I posted. Reread all my post.

So your telling me that your at Target and some guy takes the last bag of Doritos that you wanted, and you start yelling and using profanity against him, so he takes a swing at you and hits you in the arm, so you pull your gun and shoot him.

Good luck with that one being justified.

The OP created the problem, like I have said now 3 times in this thread, we don't have CHLs to become "brave and belligerent".

The OP did not create the problem. Nor did I ever say that you would be justified shooting someone who took the last bag of Doritos. Go read the OP's post. He did not initiate the situation. Neither did he do anything to provoke a violent response from the other guy. I said he was wrong to use the finger. But that still does not justify the other guy approaching him and threatening him.

Living up to a higher standard does not mean we have to take a certain amount of physical abuse before we are allowed to defend ourselves.

baldeagle wrote:

Rebel wrote:You state

I know the state laws concerning CHL holders, use of force, and justification pretty well.

But clearly you don't. You created/escalated the situation(he gave you a thumbs up, you gave him the bird), then you drew your gun because he started yelling at you while you were in a vehicle. How was your life in danger? What would you have done if he had taken a swing at you? You know getting into a scuffle with an individual and being punched doesn't justify drawing of your weapon. This wasn't a mob of guys or someone with a weapon of some sort, just a guy yelling at you.

A point made over and over again during both my CHL classes was that as a CHL holder you had to hold yourself up to a higher standard and to avoid putting yourself in bad situation. It's not a license to be "belligerent".

You went way overboard, plain and simple.

You are so wrong it's not even funny! A punch is deadly force and may be met with deadly force in response. Plain and simple.

A while back a man was in his car in traffic when another driver got out of his car and approached his window screaming at him. The guy had a tire iron in his hand and was threatening to break the window to get at the guy. The trapped driver drew his weapon and shot the guy dead. He was no-billed by the grand jury.

The OP was trapped in his car when he was approached by a man who was obviously agitated. He should not have given the guy the finger, but that still doesn't justify the guy threatening him. He was well within his rights to draw his weapon in an effort to protect himself should the incident escalate further. And had the guy even threatened to punch him, he would have been justified in shooting him. He did not display the weapon or threaten the man with the weapon. I suppose an overly aggressive prosecutor might try to do something with this incident, but any lawyer worth his salt would get the charges thrown out.

We have CHLs for a reason - to protect ourselves from precisely the kind of people the OP encountered.

pbwalker wrote:

Rebel wrote:You know getting into a scuffle with an individual and being punched doesn't justify drawing of your weapon.

Not always true...

Beiruty wrote:Note, the report would says he said, she said, no harm, no witnesses ....

I know the state laws concerning CHL holders, use of force, and justification pretty well.