TexasCHLforum.com

stevie_d_64 wrote: Fear is emotional, therefore something could be misconstrued as your emotions effected how "reasonable" you reacted to a threat...

Yes, but it is a NORMAL emotion for someone to experience if they are threatened with an actual danger to life and limb.

So if you do NOT experience it in the situation in question, you could be considered to be "abnormal", which could create a perception that your reaction to the situation was possibly "unreasonable". Or possibly, the situation might be judged as not rising to the point where deadly force was necessary, in which case you're in trouble.

That's why I think the best policy is to tell the truth. If the situation put you in fear for your life, say so. That, in combination with a full description of what happened is most likely to produce a correct outcome, IMO.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I believe I know what you mean,

Thank you.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: .....but my concern, and txinvestigator's, is that some people can read such statements and think that "anytime I'm afraid, I can shoot." That could get some good people into a lot of trouble.

Chas.

I appreciate the concern.

I think my emphasis on context and APD Chief Acevedo's remarks, taken in context, minimize the chances of misunderstanding.

Certainly, any detailed discussion for the purposes of education should refer to and explain the statutory language.

At least that's my take on it.

FWIW, Ayoob relates a story of a guy (not in TX) who was involved in a self defense shooting that seemed (to Ayoob) to be justified. Nevertheless, the guy was charged with murder. For whatever reason, at trial the guy took the stand in his own defense. His case blew up when the prosecutor asked him if at any time during the altercation he was in fear for his life. The guy responded with something like, "I've never been afraid of any man."

Result: Guilty. The way Ayoob tells it, it was the guy's macho "no fear" declaration that sunk his case.

txinvestigator wrote: So what? DA Rosenthal in Houston says that the traveling presumption means nothing. Just because someone said it don't make it so.

No. He didn't say it meant nothing. He said that just because it was a "presumption" it didn't mean that it was automatically true in every case. So he adopted a policy of arresting people who were carrying guns in their cars without CHL's and let the finders of fact determine (at trial) whether the presumption that someone was travelling was true in any given case.

propellerhead wrote: As Charles put it during the seminar... I am in fear of my life whenever my sister in law is driving my car and I'm a passenger. But that doesn't give me the right to shoot her. Not those words but something along that line.

Because shooting would not be a reasonable response in that situation.

I think things were very well explained in the other thread. The rest is just word games, selecting from among multiple meanings that most words have to arrive at a nonsensical example or ignoring proper/intended context.

Again, I refer you to APD Chief Acevedo's comments quoted in the other thread. Taken in context, the meaning is very clear.

txinvestigator wrote: NO, no no. Being in fear of your life means nothing. (didn't we JUST have a thread about it?)

Actually, if you review the other thread, we established that being in reasonable fear for your (or another innocent) life was more or less a brief way of expressing that the requirements for deadly force had been met without quoting the full verbiage of the statute.

I would refer you especially to the comments of APD Chief Acevedo as he describes the circumstances of a recent officer-involved shooting.

KBCraig wrote:I don't know how "Castle Doctrine" got stuck to this bill, because Texas already had a castle doctrine: that is, no duty to retreat within your own home before resorting to deadly force.

What people frequently call "castle doctrine" is the law that removes any obligation to retreat, so long as you're in a place where you have a right to be. It's more accurately called a "stand your ground" law.

Correct. The NRA has termed this type of legislation "Castle Doctrine" because it sounds better to the general public than "stand your ground". From a political standpoint this has been a successful tactic. It puts the antis on the defensive.