My first CHL-related incident with HPD

[speedsix]

...having honked at the guy impatiently, (perceived by the other guy as telling him how to drive)...the thumbs up was probably not friendly...but we were taught that the greater burden for being peaceable was on us because we could afford to let little insults slide...we were told plainly not to provoke another...and that falling back on our weapon after having provoked someone was not why we have the permit...it would have been wise to overlook the thumb...had he continued to escalate...and you had to use the gun...you would have possibly taken a life...because you didn't like the way he drove his car...and didn't like his thumb...even if criminal charges weren't filed...you'd see that thumb in your dreams for the rest of your life...I give your starting and escalating and attitude thumbs down...

[Oldgringo]

Everybody read through this {thread} again and then ask each other, "is it any wonder that there are those who want tighter gun control laws'?

In the immortal words of Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us".

[A-R]

Everybody read through this {thread} again and then ask each other, "is it any wonder that there are those who want tighter gun control laws'?

In the immortal words of Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us".

A bit broad and a little harsh, maybe. But a darn good point nonetheless.

[StewNTexas]

People have to stop wearing their feelings on their sleeves. Flip one guy off, he may just laugh. The next one may take great exception.

Remember the old kids saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words just piss me off" (with a bit of a change from the original).

I feel anyone carrying a CHL must keep a higher standard in their mind and attitude.

[Commander Cody]

"I returned with a similar gesture, only using a different finger."

De-escalation is the key in this situation. Nuff said.

[terryg]

To the OP:

So, everyone agrees that 'showing him that you think he is number 1' was a bad idea. IIRC conflict resolution was the first thing we went over in my CHL class. But you admit yourself that it was a poor choice.

I have been threatened through my drivers window before, years ago when I lived in Hawaii - by a big old Samoan dude. It was very intimidating. If the guy wanted to hurt you, he could have broken the glass and started pummeling in a matter of seconds. And your position of being seated in the car clearly stacked the odds against you. If there was a way for you to 'ready' your weapon more discreetly - perhaps that would have been ideal. But I am not convinced that 'readying' your weapon was the wrong move at that moment - if that is indeed what happened.

Pulling out a cell phone to call 911 *at that moment* is probably not advisable either as it ties up your hands and takes your attention off of the threat.

But what I truly don't understand, is once he finally walked away, why didn't you leave? Regardless of the fact that you escalated it with the finger (I mean even if we take that out of the equation) - you were scared for your life from this guy - enough to ready your gun in your lap. Then when the tension evaporated, you risked re-igniting the fire (and did re-ignite it, I might add) by going into the office. When he left your car, you should have immediately left, and then called 911 to report the incident.

If I were a LEO investigating the incident (or sitting on a jury) your 'in the moment' finger display would weigh in much less to me if you had left when you had the chance. Everybody make poor decisions and acts on ego from time to time. But when you are in fear for your life from someone, you generally do not choose to extend the confrontation.

[A-R]

I AM NO A LAWYER

A few points:

1. BOTH men were wrong. Both men had ample opportunity to de-escalate, ignore, or just walk away.

2. The OP made three critical mistakes beyond the over-riding mistake of not de-escalating the situation:

a) middle finger – childish, immature response (we’ve all done it, and most of us have regretted it at some point, and hopefully we’ve all learned NOT to do it while carrying)

b) unconcealing a firearm – does NOT matter that you didn’t point it, didn’t intend for other guy to see it. By unconcealing your weapon you very likely violated PC 46.035(a) “intentionally fails to conceal handgun” or – if claming that you are carrying under MPA and not CHL because you’re in your car – then you violated PC 46.02. Regardless, the burden of proof is now on YOU to prove your action of unconcealing your firearm was justified under the law.

c) You didn’t call 911 first - you unconcealed your gun in reaction to the aggressive nature of another individual; but the other guy called the police. Guess who looks guilty from the start?

3. Everyone here on this board most likely owns a gun, carries a gun and yet MOST of us are telling you what you did was wrong. What do you think a jury of your real world peers will tell you? Why put your future freedom on the line in this manner over a jerk in line in front of you? I'm sure you were fearful at some point - you'd provoked someone with enough temper to become very aggressive toward you. But every justification for use of force/deadly force under Texas law comes with the caveat that you cannot PROVOKE the aggression you seek to stop with your own use of force/deadly force. At some point, you have to at least APPEAR to be the VICTIM/potential victim if you want to be justified under the law in using deadly force. When were you the victim?

At each point in this quick escalation, you or the other guy were increasing the provocation. THE OTHER GUY played the victim as soon as he saw your gun! He was the first to back down. See how this works? Each of you escalated and re-escalated until the other guy said "whoa!" and decided the conflict was no longer worth it. The fact that he backed down first does not define the entire situation; the fact that you never backed down is more damaging toward you. And this is not to say that pulling a gun to stop an attack is always wrong by any means. It's also not to say that the other guy was justified to walk up to your car in a threatening manner. It's to say that YOU contributed to his walking up and threatening you. If you had NOT flipped him off and he had walked up to your car in an obviously aggressive and threatening manner, then you at least APPEAR much more like a victim. Even after you flipped him off, if you had kept your window up when he approached you look more like the victim.

Again BOTH men took it too far. The other guy probably broke the law when he approached in an aggressive manner. The OP broke it when he pulled his gun without legal justification. Remember: 1. you can't provoke the action you seek to stop by pulling your gun 2. to be legally justified in pulling your gun, doing so must be a reasonable response to an imminent threat of immediate serious harm.

4. Just an educated guess: the police easily could’ve arrest BOTH men, but I’m guessing they talked to both and allowed cooler heads to prevail. They probably told the other man – the initiating caller – that he could press charges against the OP for pulling the gun, but may have also advised him that the OP could easily press charges against him also. Perhaps the “waiting for the detectives” bit from the police is their way of telling you that you got lucky, but you may not be out of the woods yet. I’m guessing when the patrol officers file their report, it could be picked up by a detective for follow up OR the other guy could decide to press charges.

Regardless, as GigAg pointed out in his post, you are EXTREMELY lucky you were not arrested.

5. There is almost never a simple Point A to Point B linear path from “threat” to “pull gun”. If there is, then you’re not paying attention (staying in condition Yellow) and you were caught off guard. Or, as with OP, you may have contributed to escalating a conflict to the point of pulling a gun.

As has been mentioned, a much deeper understanding of force/deadly force laws is needed. Charles Cotton’s seminar is a perfect place to learn this. His “threat assessment checklist” idea alone is worth the time and effort of attending his free seminar.

Arguments over whether “a punch alone” or “I’m gonna knock you out” is enough to justify a deadly force response miss the point. NOTHING – alone – is likely enough to justify deadly force, short of a guy walking up to you unprovoked, weapon in hand, with the obvious intent to do you serious harm. Unless you’re a bank teller or convenience store clerk, how likely is that scenario?

But in a life or death situation, you can’t keep all these fluctuating scenarios straight in your head. Which is why something like a threat assessment checklist is so vital – it gives you a mental step-by-step pre-planned set of actions/reactions.

As each of us is developing our own mental checklist, always keep in mind the key words for legal justification:

Are you taking a REASONABLE action to stop an IMMINNENT threat of IMMEDIATE death or serious bodily injury?

I AM NOT A LAWYER

[billv]

. 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.

[RoyGBiv]

If charges are pressed against you, remember that the car wash likely has video.
I suggest that you hire an attorney and subpoena (or whatever) that video evidence before it is overwritten/lost/etc.

If you are charged, having video evidence of a guy approaching your car angrily and losing his cool could be your salvation.

[couzin]

Everybody read through this {thread} again and then ask each other, "is it any wonder that there are those who want tighter gun control laws'?

A bit broad and a little harsh, maybe. But a darn good point nonetheless.

Broad by necessity - but not harsh. I have seen way too many individuals posting here occasionally (I think most post a couple times then leave the forum), and many others on other gun forums, that make it clear that they now have a gun and are not going to hesitate to use it on ANYBODY that messes with them... Frankly - they scare me - short fuzes, HE, and an indescribable mental state out looking for a fight -- nope, Oldgringo is correct - chickens are coming home!!!

[Purplehood]

"I returned with a similar gesture, only using a different finger."

De-escalation is the key in this situation. Nuff said.

I really don't consider a different finger a "similar" gesture. I am sure the guy at the car-wash didn't either. I feel that both parties involved over-reacted.

[sugar land dave]

The OP did not create the problem.

I disagree with your opinion.

The OP was a party to an incident which was an ongoing escalation by BOTH parties. He posted his viewpoint, no doubt putting it in the best light. Yet my opinion is that he let his ego and emotions overcome his intellect. I'm 56, and yet I will not exonerate someone else just because they are getting older and should know better.

Other people on the planet are going to do and say things that I do not like. I cannot control that, but I can allow my intellect to govern my emotions rather than the reverse. I think it is best to remember that to whatever extent that you injure someone, you also injure your own inner self.

You can disregard these words, but in real life you will not be able to disregard this truth. Be good to others; it will be good for you, and by forgiving others, you forgive yourself.

For the OP: You need to control yourself, not give it over to others manipulations. You choose how to react. Try to do so with graciousness and grace.

[couzin]

Other people on the planet are going to do and say things that I do not like. I cannot control that, but I can allow my intellect to govern my emotions rather than the reverse. I think it is best to remember that to whatever extent that you injure someone, you also injure your own inner self.

You can disregard these words, but in real life you will not be able to disregard this truth. Be good to others; it will be good for you, and by forgiving others, you forgive yourself.

For the OP: You need to control yourself, not give it over to others manipulations. You choose how to react. Try to do so with graciousness and grace.

Wow dude - excellent - I really like this post! Give it up for "sugar land dave"!!!

[rmr1923]

PC §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 the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately
necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable
if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom
the 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 aggravated kidnapping,
murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery;
(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.

on the one hand, the OP likely had reason to believe that the man might unlawfully (and with force) enter his vehicle. but on the other hand, he did provoke him by flipping the bird. so i guess my question is, if the man did attempt to enter the OP's vehicle and assault him, would the OP not be justified in using force because he provoked the attacker?


Edit: the above post isn't intended to condemn or justify the OP's actions, i pose this question solely for the sake of better understanding the CHL laws.

[A-R]

Everybody read through this {thread} again and then ask each other, "is it any wonder that there are those who want tighter gun control laws'?

A bit broad and a little harsh, maybe. But a darn good point nonetheless.

Broad by necessity - but not harsh. I have seen way too many individuals posting here occasionally (I think most post a couple times then leave the forum), and many others on other gun forums, that make it clear that they now have a gun and are not going to hesitate to use it on ANYBODY that messes with them... Frankly - they scare me - short fuzes, HE, and an indescribable mental state out looking for a fight -- nope, Oldgringo is correct - chickens are coming home!!!

Couzin, I agree with both you and Oldgringo. My "a little harsh" reference was to the "we've met the enemy and he is us" quote .... harsh only in the sense that not all of "us" are the enemy because most of "us" don't react/think/do these kinds of things. But I definitely see yours and Oldgringo's points very clearly and agree with them. "one bad apples spoils the bunch" is my preferred catchphrase. This is why it's so encouraging to see so many who instantly recognize when someone else's use of a gun is in the wrong. I sometimes think perhaps prosecutors have it wrong if they try to weed out gun owners/chl holders from a jury in a case involving unlawful use of a weapon - seems many of us, for very good reason, can be just as "harsh" or more so than an anti when it comes to condemning unlawful use of a firearm. And that ... is a good thing to be sure. Unlawful use of weapons should be universally condemned.