Is this legal?

[Backfire]

Why is it that there are so many first posts that are "can I shoot" questions?

Very simple - Going to jail and going into financial ruin. You better know when to shoot the guy. If it is not deemed "reasonable" or the disparity of force is not great enough - it may be worth a "fist" or two. The problem is it is not clear by the law. Up to the jury to decide if you were reasonable in the threat. I am new at this and need to be clear in my mind when to pull the weapon. I am reading Mas Ayoob book In the gravest extreme. He had illustrations where a off duty cop got into a fist fight with guys, it turned bad for him - he was getting stomped. Guess what? He pulls his weapon and kills 2 of the guys and paralyzed the other. He was ruined in civil court ~ 1million. But he was alive. You pull that weapon you better know the law and what the trade off's are - before you run off half cocked (no pun intended).

[AEA]

Here's the answer to the question...."Is it legal"?

The Grand Jury will make that determination after the fact.

[fickman]

the instructor said that fists alone were never justification to use deadly force.

I empathize with his motivation. . . trying to stop vigilantism and/or prevent hot heads from thinking they have the ultimate bar brawl trump card, but it's just not accurate.

"Almost never" would have been more responsible to say, followed by an explanation of disparity of force.

My instructor had me (I'm 6'5" and was in my mid-20s for my first class) stand up next to a WWII vet and used that to respectfully demonstrate the concept.

[mamabearCali]

the instructor said that fists alone were never justification to use deadly force.

I empathize with his motivation. . . trying to stop vigilantism and/or prevent hot heads from thinking they have the ultimate bar brawl trump card, but it's just not accurate.

"Almost never" would have been more responsible to say, followed by an explanation of disparity of force.

My instructor had me (I'm 6'5" and was in my mid-20s for my first class) stand up next to a WWII vet and used that to respectfully demonstrate the concept.

This is where you have to think and use your head. First the triangle--- Don't be in a bad place, with bad people, doing bad things. Additionally don't be in a stupid place, with stupid people, doing stupid stuff. If you know where trouble is likely to be avoid it.

Now for the hypothetical when trouble comes to you.

My DH and I are probably good examples to use in a hypothetical. My DH is 31 years old, 5 foot 6 inches and a bit round, but fully capable of beating a track out of a nasty situation. If he is in a supermarket parking lot and a fellow comes up and says he is going be beat my DH tail should my DH take out his gun and shoot him--no--that would likely not be a good idea until he has tried other things. Avoidance, getting into a car, going back into the store. Chris is an abled body man and has several options. Now if the guy closes on my DH and corners him then the situation becomes murky (and why he carried pepper spray too!). Now if the same fellow closes on me at the grocery store with the four children with me and tells me he is going to beat my tail...I am a 5 foot 4 inch woman with a baby, toddler, preschooler, and a elementary school aged child in my charge. I can't run, I can't dodge, I can't get all of us into a car in a hurry, I can't run back into the store. I have no option but to put my children behind me and tell him to go away and if pursued still to draw and if pursued still to fire. Because it is not me that I fear for by my four month old that can't so much as crawl away and my two year old that if I am incapacitated will be playing in traffic. I am willing to go to jail, to face financial ruin, and yes to die to protect them.

[JP171]

OP the short answer is yes you can "pull" your weapon and shoot someone who is using his or her fists to bludgeon you into submission, the fist is defined as a deadly weapon. anything used can be, as it says in its use or intended use may cause serious bodily injury or death.

[bizarrenormality]

As long as the shooter didn't provoke the fight, I subscribe to the Will Munny principle.

"You just shot an unarmed man!"
"Well, he should have armed himself..."

[FastCarry]

The very first CHL shooting in Texas was a little guy getting pounded on by a big guy. The little guy was able to get his gun and shoot and kill the big guy and he was "no billed."

When there is a disparity of force (multiple attackers against one, young against old, or big against little) we are justified in pulling our weapon out whether we use it or not. If you are in fear for your life you are justified in using deadly force. In this situation, I'm not sure if you would be justified in pulling your gun out before the guy started pounding on you, but if he did start pounding on you and you feared for your life then you're good to go.

IIRC, the decision on this case was due to repeated strikes to the head. From what was discussed in my class, if youre being pounded on, with fists, and not in the head, that isnt enough to justify deadly force. The way I see it, if myself or someone near by is facing imminent fatality, im using my weapon. Property can be replaced, although justified, im not equating material possessions to a man's life(unless ofcourse its in my home, or aggravated robbery, that threat includes property but also physical danger).

[C-dub]

The very first CHL shooting in Texas was a little guy getting pounded on by a big guy. The little guy was able to get his gun and shoot and kill the big guy and he was "no billed."

When there is a disparity of force (multiple attackers against one, young against old, or big against little) we are justified in pulling our weapon out whether we use it or not. If you are in fear for your life you are justified in using deadly force. In this situation, I'm not sure if you would be justified in pulling your gun out before the guy started pounding on you, but if he did start pounding on you and you feared for your life then you're good to go.

IIRC, the decision on this case was due to repeated strikes to the head. From what was discussed in my class, if youre being pounded on, with fists, and not in the head, that isnt enough to justify deadly force. The way I see it, if myself or someone near by is facing imminent fatality, im using my weapon. Property can be replaced, although justified, im not equating material possessions to a man's life(unless ofcourse its in my home, or aggravated robbery, that threat includes property but also physical danger).

I don't understand the difference or think there is one. Being hit in the head or facing broken ribs, ruptured spleen liver or kidneys can be just as deadly. It's just like the Martin-Zimmerman thing down in Florida. Now that the doctor's report has come out and said that Zimmerman's head had all this damage on it, but he wasn't taken to the hospital it must not have been serious enough for him to be in fear for his life. Do we all have to be ER doctors now and be able to discern a few cuts and bruises from serious bodily injury? Can't I just be in fear for my life if someone is administering a beat down on me? Now, I'm not a little guy, but I am getting older. If someone is beating on me it's because they are much more capable than I am or they sucker punched me, which puts me at a severe disadvantage.

We talk a lot about LEOs shooting dogs. The argument boils down to why should anyone have to suffer a bite before they can shoot. Many police departments will argue this point as a legitimate reason for their officers' actions, so how long must I take a beating or just how serious do I have to be injured before I can shoot? I am not advocating shooting a person that is threatening me before they actually hit me, but that's what many police department policy's are when it comes to dogs. What really is the difference? I know there is one, but I'm not sure I know what it is.

[Hoosier Daddy]

If thugs want to avoid getting shot, they should stop assaulting people. Don't start none and there won't be none.

[clarionite]

The reason it's asked so much, and the reason everyone is confused is that the answer is "It Depends"

And "It Depends" changes every day in every situation. And boils down to which Investigator you draw, if they're getting along with their spouse and kids that day, which DA you draw and all the little things like what their personal beliefs are about CHL. Then it depends on which lawyer you can afford, and who shows up for jury duty and what kind of mentality they have.

The question that is asked is "When can I shoot?" or "Can I shoot if x happens?" What they really mean is, "Will I have to deal with legal ramifications if I shoot?" The answer to that is a most resounding Yes! You'll have to deal with the police, you more than likely will have to deal with a lawyer. You might have to deal with a DA, a Grand Jury, and later a Judge and Jury. This is a very scary position that most sane people don't want to have to be in. So, while the law may say this or that when it comes to when you should shoot, my personal rule of thumb is only shoot if I feel that myself or some other innocent person may not walk away from the situation if I don't shoot. That way, no matter what I have to deal with on the legal side, I have less to deal with on the conscious side of the matter.

All of this is by no means legal advice, it's just my personal view of the shoot/ no shoot question. It's how I justify my decision to carry. And in my opinion, if someone hasn't decided if the can pull the trigger if that day comes, and that they're ready to deal with the after math of shooting then they really need to do some more soul searching before strapping on a weapon.

[Stumpjumper]

So, while the law may say this or that when it comes to when you should shoot, my personal rule of thumb is only shoot if I feel that myself or some other innocent person may not walk away from the situation if I don't shoot. That way, no matter what I have to deal with on the legal side, I have less to deal with on the conscious side of the matter.

All of this is by no means legal advice, it's just my personal view of the shoot/ no shoot question. It's how I justify my decision to carry. And in my opinion, if someone hasn't decided if the can pull the trigger if that day comes, and that they're ready to deal with the after math of shooting then they really need to do some more soul searching before strapping on a weapon.[/quote]

Well said, I don't think people think enough about the ramifications of having to use your weapon. I carry so that I can protect my wife and children if/when needed. I certainly hope that I will never have to use deadly force but am fully aware that it is a possibility. If it does come to that, then I will know that I have done everything I possibly could/should have to avoid the situation and have no qualms dealing with what I had to do.

[Backfire]

Yes. That is exactly where i am at. My CHL should get here in a few weeks. And i need to understand my own threshold "when" to draw the weapon. One interesting stat is the out of the people who do use a weapon to defend themselves from an attacker - or aggressor. Only 8% actually fire. I can't remember the source on that. Meaning the weapon being drawn deters the average aggressor - meaning mugger, armed with fist only. The sight of a .40 caliber 13 shot glock deters most sane people. For others they would wrestle your weapon away if they were in a drug induced state. Police are protected by their job authority much more than a civilian - you cant compare the two. Your head must be screwed on firmly before you draw your weapon. Another very depressing statistic is that in cop altercations with bad guys, the average gun fight is within 10 feet or so. I am assuming that the same thing would apply to a would be mugger. Quick decision would have to be made.

[Jumping Frog]

And "It Depends" changes every day in every situation. And boils down to which Investigator you draw, if they're getting along with their spouse and kids that day, which DA you draw and all the little things like what their personal beliefs are about CHL. Then it depends on which lawyer you can afford, and who shows up for jury duty and what kind of mentality they have.

The question that is asked is "When can I shoot?" or "Can I shoot if x happens?" What they really mean is, "Will I have to deal with legal ramifications if I shoot?" The answer to that is a most resounding Yes! You'll have to deal with the police, you more than likely will have to deal with a lawyer. You might have to deal with a DA, a Grand Jury, and later a Judge and Jury. This is a very scary position that most sane people don't want to have to be in. So, while the law may say this or that when it comes to when you should shoot, my personal rule of thumb is only shoot if I feel that myself or some other innocent person may not walk away from the situation if I don't shoot. That way, no matter what I have to deal with on the legal side, I have less to deal with on the conscious side of the matter.

It also depends upon how well you can articulate the facts that led you to believe you were in immediate danger from deadly force, even if the BG turns out to be unarmed.

Contrast how these two descriptions paint a different picture:

Description 1: A guy approached me in a parking lot so I shot him. I don't know if he was armed.

Description 2: I was in a isolated parking lot with no other cars nearby. I saw the man start walking towards me. I altered course and noted he also altered his course to intercept me. I held my weak hand out in a "Stop" gesture and told him to stay away from me, but he kept approaching. I noticeably placed my strong hand on the grip of my handgun while repeating the "Stop" gesture with my other hand and now telling him, "STOP RIGHT THERE, DO NOT APPROACH ME" in a command voice. He continued coming, now at a brisker pace. I drew my handgun at low ready, and told him "I AM WARNING YOU TO STOP APPROACHING ME OR I WILL SHOOT". He started running towards me. I could not see his hands. I concluded if he was still willing to continue what appears to be an attack in that manner even though he knew I was armed, he must have the means to be deadly himself and had bad intentions. I believed the entire approach to be an imminent robbery. Means, motive, opportunity. I stopped the threat.

Same basic facts but two entirely different articulations.

[Backfire]

good illustration scenarios. All attempts to de-escalate the situation. Now if only there was a witness to see all that. But within your conscience it would be clear. Interesting Mas Ayoob talks about police use the command "FREEZE DROP YOUR WEAPON", if the aggressor spins with gun in hand they drop him - conscience clear. In texas there is a retreat when possible aspect in the use the deadly force. WHat your scenario demonstrated was a solid attempt to avoid the use of deadly force. Thanks folks in the forum have thought through this as well. It helps us CHL newbies.

[C-dub]

In texas there is a retreat when possible aspect in the use the deadly force.

Not any more.