Progression of Use of Force for CHL Holders!

[Jimineer]

Not a popular response probably, but you should be condition yellow. Go to another store in a better area that does not have drunks approaching folks. Around where I live the cops keep the drunken riff raff off the streets at least where the public is.

Also, if you look passive, then you will look weak and approachable. Tell them sharply to get lost before they say anything and they will often back off and look for he next easier victim. If not, then take appropriate action - which could include getting back in your car and leaving. Unless its caught on video, the drunk has as much right to press charges on you if an altercation occurs. Not worth the hassle.

[Jumping Frog]

... Tell them sharply to {inappropriate language}...

Aside from being a forum rules violation, if you tell them to do that it can also be disorderly conduct which causes one to lose your CHL.

I prefer to tell them to STOP in full command voice.

[longtooth]

... Tell them sharply to {inappropriate language}...

Aside from being a forum rules violation, if you tell them to do that it can also be disorderly conduct which causes one to lose your CHL.

I prefer to tell them to STOP in full command voice.

Got it edited.

[Ruark]

Midgard, remember that under Texas law, simply displaying or drawing your gun to demonstrate that you will use it if necessary is NOT considered to be deadly force. It is seen as just "force." If the other continues using force towards you after that, it can really put you in a conundrum, especially if he is not openly displaying a weapon.

[JP171]

Midgard, remember that under Texas law, simply displaying or drawing your gun to demonstrate that you will use it if necessary is NOT considered to be deadly force. It is seen as just "force." If the other continues using force towards you after that, it can really put you in a conundrum, especially if he is not openly displaying a weapon.

actually it really doesn't matter if the BG has a weapon or not, if the BG continues to advance then you advance to the next round in your mag, the fist,feet and other parts of the body are in fact deadly weapons

[Jumping Frog]

Midgard, remember that under Texas law, simply displaying or drawing your gun to demonstrate that you will use it if necessary is NOT considered to be deadly force. It is seen as just "force."

Yes, but do not overlook that displaying your handgun without the justification to use deadly force means one can still be charged with failure to conceal.

[mastaff611]

Midgard, remember that under Texas law, simply displaying or drawing your gun to demonstrate that you will use it if necessary is NOT considered to be deadly force. It is seen as just "force." If the other continues using force towards you after that, it can really put you in a conundrum, especially if he is not openly displaying a weapon.

Actually, displaying your handgun IS deadly force unless you are making a citizen's arrest per the code below.

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

So, unless he is making an apprehension (and I don't see where the drunk in the scenario is breaking a law to justify a citizen's arrest), he may not produce the handgun, legally, unless deadly force is justified.

[sjfcontrol]

Midgard, remember that under Texas law, simply displaying or drawing your gun to demonstrate that you will use it if necessary is NOT considered to be deadly force. It is seen as just "force." If the other continues using force towards you after that, it can really put you in a conundrum, especially if he is not openly displaying a weapon.

Actually, displaying your handgun IS deadly force unless you are making a citizen's arrest per the code below.

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

So, unless he is making an apprehension (and I don't see where the drunk in the scenario is breaking a law to justify a citizen's arrest), he may not produce the handgun, legally, unless deadly force is justified.

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "apprehension" -- it does NOT mean an arrest. (At least in this case, it doesn't.)

[mastaff611]

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "apprehension" -- it does NOT mean an arrest. (At least in this case, it doesn't.)

Apprehension: The seizure, taking, or arrest of a person on a criminal charge.

[sjfcontrol]

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "apprehension" -- it does NOT mean an arrest. (At least in this case, it doesn't.)

Apprehension: The seizure, taking, or arrest of a person on a criminal charge.

The very first definition is

Anxiety or fear that something bad or unpleasant will happen.

That is the use here. One does not "create" an arrest, one creates anxiety or fear.

[JALLEN]

Apprehension is not necessarily limited to fear or anxiety about a bad or unpleasant event, but can include understanding or awareness of a fact or situation or circumstance. I think that is most likely the sense the Lege intended, to make someone aware that deadly force was about to be used if they didn't change their ways.

[sjfcontrol]

Apprehension is not necessarily limited to fear or anxiety about a bad or unpleasant event, but can include understanding or awareness of a fact or situation or circumstance. I think that is most likely the sense the Lege intended, to make someone aware that deadly force was about to be used if they didn't change their ways.

You don't believe that the possibility of the use of deadly force against someone would be cause of fear or anxiety? Or you don't believe that the use of deadly force would be an unpleasant event? Actually, if it wasn't cause for concern, why would the other person be convinced to change their ways?

My only point was that the definition of apprehension as being an arrest was not appropriate. PC9.04 is not talking about a citizen arrest. It is specifically talking about the threat of the use of deadly force. Said threat to convince the other person deadly force will be used if necessary. Whether that information is intended to create fear or anxiety, or merely to inform, is pretty much irrelevant. (IMO)

[JALLEN]

Apprehension is not necessarily limited to fear or anxiety about a bad or unpleasant event, but can include understanding or awareness of a fact or situation or circumstance. I think that is most likely the sense the Lege intended, to make someone aware that deadly force was about to be used if they didn't change their ways.

You don't believe that the possibility of the use of deadly force against someone would be cause of fear or anxiety? Or you don't believe that the use of deadly force would be an unpleasant event? Actually, if it wasn't cause for concern, why would the other person be convinced to change their ways?

My only point was that the definition of apprehension as being an arrest was not appropriate. PC9.04 is not talking about a citizen arrest. It is specifically talking about the threat of the use of deadly force. Said threat to convince the other person deadly force will be used if necessary. Whether that information is intended to create fear or anxiety, or merely to inform, is pretty much irrelevant. (IMO)

None of the above. I merely point out that the definition of "apprehension" includes all of the concepts mentioned, and whether fear, anxiety, unpleasantness is generated, the key to it is awareness. It was all you said and more besides.

[smoothoperator]

So, unless he is making an apprehension (and I don't see where the drunk in the scenario is breaking a law to justify a citizen's arrest), he may not produce the handgun, legally, unless deadly force is justified.

Where did you go to law school?

[TacShot]

So, unless he is making an apprehension (and I don't see where the drunk in the scenario is breaking a law to justify a citizen's arrest), he may not produce the handgun, legally, unless deadly force is justified.

Where did you go to law school?

I don't know if mastaf611 went to law school or not. Nor does it matter. He has the right to express his understanding of the law, right or wrong, as many of us do. It becomes a learning process for the individual and the interested forum members as others explain the proper interpretation of the law.