Obligations if involved in a shooting?

Joel · #1

A friend who before moving to Colorado was a Texas CHL instructor sent me an e-mail asking if the following was true. He read (and I don't know where) that it was the obligation of a CHL holder in Texas who was involved in a shooting to determine if the person shot was incapacitated before firing again. His information said this was a new requirement in Texas.

I have not seen or heard anything regarding this. Can someone confirm or refute this info?

Thanks,
Joel

Mithras61 · #2

He probably got it out of the November issue of Guns & Ammo. There's been some discussion of that topic here in the Instructor's Corner.

Liberty · #3

It was a side comment in a letter to the editor. It doesn't seem to be anything to take seriously.

Joel · #4

Mithras61,
Thanks for pointing me to the topic discussion in the Instructor's Corner. As you can tell from my post count, exactly 1, I am new here and still feeling my way around. Great site and glad I found it.

Liberty,
I didn't take it seriously when my friend e-mailed, but just wanted to be sure.

Thanks all,
Joel

Liberty · #5

Joel wrote:Mithras61,
Thanks for pointing me to the topic discussion in the Instructor's Corner. As you can tell from my post count, exactly 1, I am new here and still feeling my way around. Great site and glad I found it.

Liberty,
I didn't take it seriously when my friend e-mailed, but just wanted to be sure.

Thanks all,
Joel

A few of us were left scratching our heads when we first saw that. Welcome aboard. I hope that you find this place as fun and informative as I do.

Mithras61 · #6

Joel wrote:Mithras61,
Thanks for pointing me to the topic discussion in the Instructor's Corner. As you can tell from my post count, exactly 1, I am new here and still feeling my way around. Great site and glad I found it.

Liberty,
I didn't take it seriously when my friend e-mailed, but just wanted to be sure.

Thanks all,
Joel

No problem, Joel. I just figured we should stick with one thread on the topic, and that one has been ongoing for a few days. As far as I know, the law hasn't changed on the subject. There may have been a case on it, but none of folks here have gotten word of it.

I suspect it was a misunderstanding of the way things work (you must stop shooting when the threat is no longer presented) and the explaination of that. The thing is, if every BG that was shot at was hit in the central nervous system, one shot would be plenty, but the reality of it is that most are NOT hit in the CNS, and then we have the question "At what point did the BG no longer represent a threat?" which is what the letter appears to be referencing.

I think most folks here will say that as long as the BG represents a deadly threat, keep shooting. The BG can keep functioning for up to a minute even after a fatal wound has been received.