Progression of Use of Force for CHL Holders!

[cz75texas]

In many instances, specifically high threat areas, you may feel the need to increase your options for levels of force. Some people carry flashlights, defensive pens, etc... I find that carrying a solid constructed ball point pen while walking to and from my vehicle gives me the option to defend myself at varying levels. I can recount several instances where a homeless drunk would approach in a dark parking lot in search of a handout late at night and be more persistent than comfortable. Certainly not worthy of punching holes in him but also a high threat scenario that may require a certain progression of force. There are always grey areas. I guess my point is...a CHL'ers nightmare is to draw hastely and end up in a wrestling match with a gun in one hand. Police have a progressive use of force ( mace, baton, tazer, deadly force). In a sense, I think its important that we create a concise format for progressive use of force specific for the everyday CHL holder. What would you do?

Scenario 1:

It's 11PM and you and your wife arrive to a soon closing convenient store. The parking lot is sparse but you recognize a man approaching customers leaving the store as you pull up. As you park he approaches your door before you can open it. He is clearly intoxicated begins to ask for spare change. You kindly say you are broke and walk into the store and purchase your items. As you are walking back to your vehicle the man approaches once more and becomes increasingly persistent and places himself between you and your door. Trying to avoid a confrontation, you and your wife take a few steps back to distance yourself and assess the situation. The man begins to walk quickly at you. What do you do? Do you have a secondary weapon appropriate for this situation? Or are you banking on the hope that this drunk man finds your pocket pistol intimidating and high tails it?

I am by no means, shape, or form a professional. Just a Texas CHL holder with some real world concerns.

[CrosstimbersOkie]

OC is great. It works on drunks and vicious dogs too. And it does no permanent damage.

[cz75texas]

Okie- OC is another great option. As long as the winds are favorable and you don't forget that OC does in fact expire.

[JALLEN]

So many variables!

What is your age, physical state, size?

Often times, announcing (in an aggressive manner) to the would be thug to leave you alone or you call the cops is enough. If it isn't, it seems like you've established a threat of bodily harm.

Some young folks can train in some martial art that might be a good non-lethal avenue of handling a minor threat. I envy them, especially the ones who have perfected the moves in aikido, where it looks like the guy is attacking you, then stumbles and falls on the ground with a broken arm, screaming in agony and nobody saw you lay a hand on him!

Many of us who are more mature types no longer have that option, either the time to learn or train for that sort of thing, or the physical prowess to pull it off even if we knew how. I can't even run anymore! I would have to walk rapidly, pulling my oxygen concentrator behind me at a vigorous clip. Give me a 30 minute head start, I might disappear! Are stun guns, those 9 million volt jobs, worth having?

My wife is a 3rd dan black belt in tang soo do, the Korean martial art. I guess if the assailant is unarmed she can whack him around; if he is armed, I'll shoot him! If it comes to serious defense, the gun will have to do, either by persuasion or by shooting it.

I'll be interested in learning what other ideas come out of this discussion.

[AlphaWhiskey]

Interesting (and very real world) scenario. I am ony going to address a couple of elements, others here will no doubt pick up on others. You mention a resistance to "punching holes" in somebody who may be aggressing you in a manner that would not require a deadly force response from you. I am making no pre assumptions about your current knowledge of use of force in Texas, but would encourage you to review the statutes. Remember that use of "deadly force" is not confined to use of a firearm or bladed instrument in the eyes of the law. Punching to the face or other vulnerable areas can very well be viewed as use of deadly force in some examples.

In MY opinion, one of the things that makes it better for us civvies in self defense is a lack of mandated continuum of force doctrine when it comes to defending ourselves. We need not worry about whether we are applying the same level of force (+1) when confronted with a situation as the BG. Instead we have two very simple circumstances to apply: Did you feel that your life or that of others in your immediate surroundings was in imminent danger? Or not? Police and others (security personnel) may be bound by force continuums because their criteria are different: defend yourself/ others vs affecting an arrest or otherwise taking control of a suspect that doesn't want to be taken control of.

Many here (as do I) advocate use of OC or other self defense spray as an adjunct to your EDC for personal defense. It may very well help avoid a true deadly force encounter in those "iffy" situations where force has been used upon you less than that which makes you fear for your life. I personally strongly advise against tacti-cool pens or other such items which will ultimately lend to the same "punching holes" in somebody you were trying to avoid in the first place. The other intended use of said taci-cool pens is in using presure point and other control tactics which, unless you are thoroughly trained, you are putting yourself in more danger than good to try and employ. My OPINION is that it is best to keep things simple and not involve force continuums (which evolved from lawsuits from excessive use of force during arrests, not self defense) in our decision process.

[cz75texas]

I completely agree with the notion that it is our primary task to assess whether or not we or the people around us are in immediate and SUBSTANTIAL risk of bodily harm and or death. At the same time some situations develop slowly or extremely quickly and leave fear of a confrontation rather than fear of death. I like to read other people's encounters in order to "practice" my mind.

Provide a scenario on this thread and or copy one from elsewhere. Read through and give yourself 5 seconds to make a decision on how you'd react. Remember to not let yourself start second guessing and asking for more details. Grey areas are the question. Nice little drill and exercises the most important weapon. Does anyone else have any real world cases or scenarios they'd like to share to shed some light on how a grey area confrontation was handled and risk was mitigated.

[cz75texas]

Interesting (and very real world) scenario. I am ony going to address a couple of elements, others here will no doubt pick up on others. You mention a resistance to "punching holes" in somebody who may be aggressing you in a manner that would not require a deadly force response from you. I am making no pre assumptions about your current knowledge of use of force in Texas, but would encourage you to review the statutes. Remember that use of "deadly force" is not confined to use of a firearm or bladed instrument in the eyes of the law. Punching to the face or other vulnerable areas can very well be viewed as use of deadly force in some examples.

In MY opinion, one of the things that makes it better for us civvies in self defense is a lack of mandated continuum of force doctrine when it comes to defending ourselves. We need not worry about whether we are applying the same level of force (+1) when confronted with a situation as the BG. Instead we have two very simple circumstances to apply: Did you feel that your life or that of others in your immediate surroundings was in imminent danger? Or not? Police and others (security personnel) may be bound by force continuums because their criteria are different: defend yourself/ others vs affecting an arrest or otherwise taking control of a suspect that doesn't want to be taken control of.

Many here (as do I) advocate use of OC or other self defense spray as an adjunct to your EDC for personal defense. It may very well help avoid a true deadly force encounter in those "iffy" situations where force has been used upon you less than that which makes you fear for your life. I personally strongly advise against tacti-cool pens or other such items which will ultimately lend to the same "punching holes" in somebody you were trying to avoid in the first place. The other intended use of said taci-cool pens is in using presure point and other control tactics which, unless you are thoroughly trained, you are putting yourself in more danger than good to try and employ. My OPINION is that it is best to keep things simple and not involve force continuums (which evolved from lawsuits from excessive use of force during arrests, not self defense) in our decision process.

Completely agree with your post in all aspects. But carrying OC and advocating its use, IS developing a force continuum.

As a 22 yr old man I'm still at the age where there's still alot of knuckleheads who would confront me just because I accidentally cut them off or glanced in their direction....(South Texas for ya). For some reason the younger you are the more people think you're trying to fight them or disrespect them. I'm not going to go off and engage a guy who is just trying to be mr. macho. I personally NEED to develop a plan of action so to speak. Know how to match the aggressor properly and handle the situation with intelligence.

[Jumping Frog]

Well, I am going to plagiarize myself, since I meant what I said the first time I said it.

There is a downside to carrying pepper spray.

If you have no alternative but to use deadly force, then it is harder to question whether deadly force was "immediately necessary" -- as required by statute.

However, if you have less-than-lethal alternatives available to you, then you open yourself up to getting questioned about why didn't you just spray him instead of shooting him. Was deadly force really "immediately necessary"? Even when deadly force would otherwise be completely warranted, there is now room for second guessing and scrutiny about whether you should have chosen the less than lethal route.

Let's review the relevant portions of the statute:

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
. . .
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
...
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
....(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B); (i.e., robbery)

For example, someone comes up to you and says, "Give me all your money!" Under §9.32(a)(2)(B), the robbery means you are justified in using deadly force if it is "immediately necessary" as specified in §9.32(a)(2). Furthermore, §9.32(b) says your belief that deadly force was immediately necessary is presumed reasonable when it is a robbery.

However, "presumed reasonable" is a rebuttable presumption. If the D.A. decides to show that your belief that deadly force was required was unreasonable because you had other viable alternatives such as pepper spray, you could find yourself at trial.

I've actually had an attorney say to me in social conversation -- not as paid legal advice -- that I'd be better off if deadly force was my only available option.

[JALLEN]

As a 22 yr old man I'm still at the age where there's still alot of knuckleheads who would confront me just because I accidentally cut them off or glanced in their direction....(South Texas for ya). For some reason the younger you are the more people think you're trying to fight them or disrespect them. I'm not going to go off and engage a guy who is just trying to be mr. macho. I personally NEED to develop a plan of action so to speak. Know how to match the aggressor properly and handle the situation with intelligence.

If I were 22 yo and in reasonably good health, I would take up aikido. Of course, if I were 22 yo and in good health, I'd sign up in the military and let THEM teach me this stuff, on the payroll.

Maybe some other martial art form, but when I looked into it at some length, aikido is what appealed to me. This is what Stephen Segal practices. When I looked into it the appeal is that the moves are very fluid, not aggressive in appearance, the reason I said earlier that, to a witness, it would look like some man was attacking you, slipped or stumbled and ended up in the ground in agony with broken arm. You never actually struck him or anything. The visits I made to the dojos here more or less confirmed this impression I had gotten from online sites, but also I learned that it takes sometimes years to develop the skills and reflexes and moves to be able to do this reliably. I don't want to be real good in ten years. It is not a choice for us older folk or the infirm, etc.

I was impressed very much taking the Level 1 course in Krav Maga. If you look into this, try to find a course taught at a Jewish Community Center, as there are a number of outfits selling courses, "McDojo's" to detractors, that are more interested in cash flow than instruction, if you get my drift. The JCC sponsored offerings seem to be more likely the "real deal." Krav Maga has number of advantages, in that it is straight forward, effective, has none of the quasi-religious "Asian pajama dancing" aspects to it some criticize.

[Reserve161]

I took Aikido back in the mid 70's while I was in and just out of high school.
Aikido is a "pacifist's" martial art - there is no attack in true Aikido.
Aikido is designed to use an opponent's strength and momentum against them,
using a lot of circular redirection of motion. Lots of judo-like throws, except instead
of using MY force to throw my attacker, I redirect and use HIS force to accomplish it.

First things taught were break-falls and learning how to fall correctly is paramount.

[mamabearCali]

I carry pepper spray for dogs and stupid children (I have heard of 11 year olds attacking people and I had a 9 year old rob me once--not violently though (pick pocket style)) and though I would not be able to fend off an attack from an 11 year old even while holding a baby and defending three others and I would like less than lethal force for both of those situations. That said my pepper spray is on my key chain and I can only hold so much on my waist so often it is hooked onto my purse. So if I was suprised by an attack and did not have the chance to unholster and unlock the pepper spray I would be out of luck.

[ghostrider]

Aikido is a "pacifist's" martial art - there is no attack in true Aikido.

A friend of mine used to refer to it as the "ancient honourable art of getting the hell out of the way"
:-)

[srothstein]

While I agree with most of what has been posted, and having options is generally a good thing, I wanted to make an important point. Do NOT think of the use of force as a progressive scale.

Most police trainers have tried to stop even using the term "continuum of force" as this implies a scalar ladder where one force option is more than another. The police are moving towards a circle of force where one person uses force and the officer can choose the appropriate response from across the circle.

The problem became that when a person was attacked by someone using their fists only, juries and the public started questioning why the police should use more than a nightstick to stop him. The disparity of force argument makes things not nearly as scalar as they seem at first. When someone has a stick, you might be able to respond with a pistol.

So, when you think of use of force, think of the attacker having used some force from one side of the circle and you can choose your best response from the anywhere on other side.

And to support the OP's concept, the more options you have to slice your half of the circle into, the better chances you have of choosing the most appropriate response.

[mastaff611]

Scenario 1:

It's 11PM and you and your wife arrive to a soon closing convenient store. The parking lot is sparse but you recognize a man approaching customers leaving the store as you pull up. As you park he approaches your door before you can open it. He is clearly intoxicated begins to ask for spare change. You kindly say you are broke and walk into the store and purchase your items. As you are walking back to your vehicle the man approaches once more and becomes increasingly persistent and places himself between you and your door. Trying to avoid a confrontation, you and your wife take a few steps back to distance yourself and assess the situation. The man begins to walk quickly at you. What do you do? Do you have a secondary weapon appropriate for this situation? Or are you banking on the hope that this drunk man finds your pocket pistol intimidating and high tails it?

I am by no means, shape, or form a professional. Just a Texas CHL holder with some real world concerns.

CZ, I can give you the perspective of a Texas Police Officer. I will address this scenario based solely on what you have written, nothing more. In order to be justified in using deadly force, as it was pointed out:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;

Your scenario doesn't seem to show the drunk using or attempting to use deadly force. Drawing your handgun would not likely be justified.

As too using other means of force, you MIGHT be justified. Force (not deadly force) is justified:
Sec. 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 drunk simply walking toward you, would not be, by itself, him using or attempting to use force against you. You would have to be able to articulate why you felt he would use force or deadly force against you.

Could you have simply walked back into the store?
Could you have shouted out for him to stop?
Could you have called 911?
Maybe OC-Pepper spray could be used, but only if 9.31 above is justified.
TASER is another option, but must be justified under 9.31 as well.

I teach use of force to Police, Security and CHL students. It is a main part of my Civilian OC and TASER courses as well. Knowing when you are justified in using force is primary point. But realizing one doesn't always have to use force (i.e. avoiding the confrontation) is something many people forget.