If you can't shoot it, don't show it!

[Popshot]

In both cases, there appears no justification for the use of force of any kind.

Aggressive driving is one thing, but "road rage" seems to happen because some folks feel insulted in their vehicles and interpret things differently out on the road. Normally, the best thing is to get a away from the situation. Long before I had CHL, I had someone try to engage me in a fight at 60MPH, by driving along next to me and mouthing off. I paid attention to where I was going. When I found a way out, I took it. Problem over.

In the second case: For God's sake, it is a parking space! Enough said.

[stevie_d_64]

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...

[KD5NRH]

By using "mugger", I was trying to describe a loser who seems to want to get something from me, but has not shown any sort of weapon.

Does he place you in fear of anything that hurts? See 29.02(a)(2) and 1.07(a)(8) above. I wouldn't shoot if the threat was a slap in the face, but I'd certainly be ready for when he finds out that ain't gonna work.

Or even a drunk hothead who comes up to you to start a fight because he thinks I'm flirting with "his woman" or something.

That's where I have a problem with the way the laws are written; why is it justifiable to use LF to prevent a robbery attempt involving less force than an unprovoked assault without the intent of theft? (the "serious bodily injury" requirement under defense of self or third party, vs only "bodily injury" as a part of robbery.)

I guess I still don't understand what constitutes use of force vs. deady force, i.e. if he hits you in the gut with a fist or pushes you to the ground, that doesn't seem "deadly" to me, but where do you draw that line?

It will pretty much always vary; for me, if I'm pushed to the ground, and the assault doesn't stop, I will fear serious injury, whereas I know guys with lots of groundfighting training who would just bring the attacker down with them and show him the error of his ways.

[switch]

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.

[txinvestigator]

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.

I completely do not understand your use of 46.035 in this post. Please elaborate.

[txinvestigator]

. ( I disagree w/TX that there are 'levels' of force, there are only two - force and deadly force.)

§9.31. Self-defense.

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree he
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect
himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

Notice it reads, "to the degree". A push is force, and a lesser degree (level) than a slap in the face. A wrist lock or arm bar is a higher degree (level) than a push, but less than a strike.

[seamusTX]

Interesting that 46.035 only applies to CHL's. We can be prosecuted but non-CHL's cannot.

An unlicensed person in that situation would be charged with UCW, which is a class A misdemeanor or felony, depending (PC §46.02).

- Jim

[switch]

Good point.

What level if 'failure to conceal'?

[seamusTX]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Did you mean is instead of if?

Violating PC §46.035(a) is a class A misdemeanor.

If an unlicensed person is charged with UCW, it's a misdemeanor except in a place alcohol is sold, or a school. Then it becomes a felony. IANAL, and there are probably more complicated circumstances where the person could be charged with aggravated assault, terroristic threats, or something of that sort.

- Jim