TexasCHLforum.com

Quote:
"During this entire time I havent threatened or flashed a weapon. Hopefully these guys would move on & this would be the end of my "VeeTee's ATM Saga"

Thanks I learned a few things & I enjoyed this mental exercise. I gotta go lay down now!"

Jim Beaux,

I enjoyed your post immensely. You're obviously a very bright guy. I base this on the fact that you came to the exact same conclusions I did. ha ha..

But to clarify one more time: This was NOT "VeeTee's ATM Saga". This was VeeTee hijacking a post by another OP in another forum.

Now it's time for MY nap! You see? We are both geniuses of identical mind!

Your twin.

V

Quote:
"It was not my intention for my comment to be directed at you, so sorry if it was taken that way."

Superman,

No worries. I took no offense. I brought that point up for a couple of reasons: First, to remind everybody that I was not the hero of the story. Second, because I realized that I had omitted an important detail from my original background summary, and that you needed to know it.

However, I laud and appreciate you for being CONCERNED ABOUT IT. It is truly unfortunate that so many people care not one whit. Yea, verily. Many seem to make it their central objective to do so.

Best to all.

V

Quote by G26ster
"That was the reason for my original question. It's not the posturing, or even the drawing of the weapon I was questioning. It was the "one on the left goes first," that implies shooting someone who did not heed your command to stay away. That is why I asked when did a crime listed in the statute become imminent? I just don't think failure to obey someone's command to stop is just cause for being shot, sans other evidence of a crime in progress IMHO. I'm not a lawyer or a LEO."

G26ster (and everybody),

The thing we must never forget, and (for me) the reason that ANY use of deadly force is so treacherous, is that "neither a lawyer or a LEO" can answer the questions of "when did a crime listed in the statute become imminent?" and/or "what would a 'reasonable' person have done" as that is the exclusive province of a jury (or grand jury) of "reasonable" people. But, what's so complicating (hence scary!) is that one's jury is really the "luck of the draw". Today, Jupiter aligns with Mars, and one lucky CHL defendant draws a jury of his "peers" i.e. "red state Texans". Tomorrow, it does not, and the same (now unlucky) CHL defendant draws a jury of card carrying vegan PETA members - or whatever, because the events unfolded in Austin.

NRA people, CHL holders, and generally, all "red state" and RKBA people (such as many - perhaps most? - Texans) live their lives in one bubble universe. Others, of ..er.. a different political persuasion, live in their own bubble universe. These two mostly parallel - but always separate - world views never meet except when they collide.

My twin objectives in presenting this scenario were: a) To learn what other "reasonable" people would do; and, b) To learn from their opinions. Nevertheless, we should all remember that each of us is "preaching to the choir" and that approximately half of the population in the USA has no interest whatsoever in listening to the sermon.

V

Quote by Superman:
"It sounds like there is a lot of inferring on what "might" happen. The inference could be very wrong and displaying a weapon could have the opposite effect (scaring them and making them call the cops on you). The easiest way to be sure is to *communicate*...simply ask them to stay back until you're done with your transaction and then they can have the ATM. If they don't comply after that and keep coming towards you (or even reply in a bad way), then your inference of them wanting to do you harm is much more easily justified. Talking to clarify your inferences is free...assuming you're correct can cost a lot. Putting myself in that situation, that's what I would have done (communicate to stay back and then show/draw if they didn't respect the request). By communicating before the draw, you take away their potential "excuse" of them just trying to use the ATM too and then trying to say you overreacted. Just my 2 cents..."

Y'all will please remember that I am not the "OP" of the thread. I'm simply the guy who hijacked the OP's thread and brought it here because I thought it's delicious complexity would make it a very good learning tool.

But Superman, you are correct. As a matter of fact, that appears to be exactly what the OP did. He did NOT draw. He simply stepped into a shooting stance, put his (presumably) right hand on his weapon (which they could not see) and held up his left in the "STAY BACK!" gesture. So, to be clear, the OP handled things exactly the same way that I would HOPE to have had the good judgment and composure to do.

As I said in MY "original post", as far as the "real OP" was concerned, once he got some amount of feedback as to whether he responded properly, plus suggestions on what he MIGHT have done after it was over (such as call 911 and file a report), he was satisfied. It was precisely at that point that I hijacked the thread for my own purposes, which were to think through what he (or I or anybody) could/should have done HAD THE BGs REFUSED TO TAKE THE HINT.

The OP mentioned that the BGs split apart into a pincer movement - instantly - upon approaching him. Since I am not an expert observer I am in no position to say "that was probable cause of evil intent". However, under the "If it looks like a skunk, walks like a skunk, and smells like a skunk, it sure ain't a rose" rule, I would personally have considered myself "reasonable" to brandish or draw. But I decided to seek a wide range of opinions for my own education.

And it has paid off immensely. I thank all of you generally, and Mr. Cotton specifically, for lighting the after-burners on my quantum leap forward on better understanding Texas law as it applies to CHL holders in the decision making process. My presumption is that it's far better to gum the thing to death inside my head rather than bitterly reflect on it - or NOT BE AROUND TO DO SO - after it's too late.

Thanks to all of you, I now feel that I'm ready to let this particular anecdote go. It's ironic I think, that I was the last one to throw in the towel. I'd like to believe that was because I perceived it to be an excellent - possibly perfect - model for the complexity of these crucial decisions.

Best to all.

VT

Quote:
"I am too slow-witted to make these snap decisions in an emergency..."

George: I share your pain (and slow wit) ha ha...

Quote:
"But, having thought about it, I believe I would get back in the car, if time permits, lock the doors, and drive a block away and call authorities. I really don't care about an ATM card, or money."

I've thought a lot about it, too. But for me, had I been the OP, any course of action based on leading them to, or drawing their attention to, my car - and my child inside - would have been a non-starter. And possession and control of the keys in my pocket would have become my own personal "alamo".

Quote:
"what a first post, why not something easy, such as, "why should I by a 1911?"

I burst into laughter reading that. I agree about the "easy". It is the only decision I've faced in life that was "easier" than "coke or pepsi".

Thank y'all for the warm welcome and for your thoughtful replies.

VT

Quote: "Robbery or aggravated robbery.

Apostate. Thanks, buddy. I must need new glasses!

I feel better already.

V

Guys,

Thanks for your points of view. Several things about the scenario worry me, but especially:

"(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery."

both A and B refer to the unlawful use of DEADLY force; and/or AGGRAVATED kidnapping or AGGRAVATED robbery, i.e. the criminals use a deadly weapon.

For me, the most worrisome and confusing part, and really, the reason for the inquiry, is: What if they keep approaching but do NOT display a weapon notwithstanding having shouted the proper warnings? I hope this makes sense.

I've read numerous posts by people who drew or brandished in situations that, in my mind, were, while not totally innocuous, still did not appear to me to be justified. About the only scenarios in which I would be able to go on "auto pilot" would be if an assailant drew a deadly weapon, or entered my dwelling forcibly, at night. During my first CHL training more than 10 years ago, an instructor mentioned that one could reasonably be in fear, if: a) the unarmed assailant is hugely bigger than I am; or, b) if their are multiple assailants. For me, the line between "too soon" and "too late" is a very fine, fast, and fleeting one.

As both a philosophical and a financial consideration I don't think I'd attempt to thwart theft of my property with a firearm. Regardless of one's philosophical leanings about the sanctity of life (even a BG's) there is still the financial cost of a legal defense, possibly in both the criminal and civil venues.

So, really, with the scenario at hand, my overriding objective would not to prevent them from taking my money. It would be to prevent them from overpowering me, leaving me defenseless to protect my child. To me, in the OP's scenario, the presence of his daughter nearby, enormously complicated his options.

VT

Gentlemen,

This is my first post to this forum. I hope this is the appropriate group for this.

This post, and my specific inquiry, is based on, and arises from, certain responses to a thread that occurred in another forum site. Here is the background, which I hope you will consider to be sufficient.

BACKGROUND.
The Original Poster was a CHL holder who experienced the following scenario. During early evening hours, he drove to an ATM with his school age (small) daughter.

He parked his mini-van few feet away from the ATM. He got out alone and locked her inside. Immediately upon commencing his transaction he was startled by two men who walked out from beside the building. They walked behind him in a sweeping arc, actively watching him, while he watched them (in mid-ATM transaction). As he watched them, they stopped.

Then, they turned toward him and began to approach. As they closed the distance, one kept his gaze fixed on the OP while the other continued looking every which way, his head constantly swiveling. They immediately drifted apart in a pincer movement.

Upon seeing this, the OP, still in the middle of his transaction, turned to face them. He took one step forward with his offside leg, swiveled his strong side hip 180 degrees from them, and placed his hand on his weapon, but did not draw nor display the weapon to their view. Luckily, the OP's stance and steely resolve sufficiently communicated that he would not go down without a fight, and they departed.

As to the OP, that was the "end of the story". However, boys being boys, we began to "armchair quarterback" what the OP could/should have done HAD THEY KEPT ADVANCING.

From that base line, there were divergent views as to the appropriate point in time and space to properly set the "trip wire" and either draw and display a weapon, or even draw and fire. Because, after all, they COULD have been there (or could have so alleged) that they were there simply to make an ATM withdrawal of their own.

So, during that ongoing discussion, I made the following comment: Quote: "In Texas, as I understand it, I have to "reasonably be in fear for my life".

To this, another participant, (also a Texan and a CHL holder) replied:

Quote: "Yes, but in Texas, it is legal to use force to stop or prevent an unlawful use of force against you. In Texas, the threat of deadly force is not considered to be a use of deadly force, but is considered to be a use of force. So, if you are unlawfully threatened with force, deadly or not, you may threaten deadly force to stop it, which means you can draw and point your weapon. Now, this is where it gets tricky. It has been explained to me that if the threat of deadly force does not stop the unlawful threat or use of force, then the threat becomes deadly as your weapon may be taken and used against you. At that point, you may be "reasonably in fear for your life." I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. You should consult with an attorney for a legal guidance." END QUOTE.

Now, although I am not an attorney, as the result of a 30 year career as a professional court interpreter, I have a better understanding of the law, and the civil and criminal judicial systems than most laymen.

My first question to you all, is this: DOES THAT SOUND CORRECT? Here, I wish to underscore that I am not seeking "legal advice". I'm not even seeking a "definitive" correct answer. Rather, I seek only your informed, thoughtful opinions.

Assuming that you place credence in the quoted comment and that you therefore hold the position that the OP was "reasonably" in fear of death or great bodily harm, and that it was, therefore "reasonable" to draw, then I would ask two subsidiary questions:

a) What should a "reasonably prudent" person have done next? And,

b) Would the OP have been justified to draw and/or fire on them at any point shy of they themselves having produced a "deadly" weapon?

In other words, in your opinions, does current Texas law support the quoted assertion?

If this is not the appropriate section for this thread then I apologize to the moderator.

Sincerely,

Vee Tee