TexasCHLforum.com

CaptDave wrote:Wow txi-

txinvestigator wrote:CaptDave,

I already wrote that you may have been in fear of your life. That may accurately described you emotion. But it ain't enough.

I already said it wasn't enough in and of itself right here:

CaptDave wrote:Yes, being in fear for your life is not technically in chapter 9 and I agree 100% that you should not use fear as your only defense in court.

I'm not sure I understand why you're continuing this, since I thought we were in agreement, but since I have nothing else to do tonight I'll try to address your concerns.

txinvestigator wrote:How about ROBBING you of your cell phone?

Well "how about....???" Or "what if....???

We can "what if" each other all night:

txinvestigator wrote: A person holds a knife out and orders you to turn over your cell phone. You do not have to believe that he was going to kill you, or that "you were in fear of your life", or even in fear of serious bodily injury. You only have to show that you reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission of the aggravated robbery.

Hmmm, now he has a knife, Yep I agree with you, smoke him.

txinvestigator wrote:From your own post;
Quote:
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery

Still agree with you, that was from my own post.

txinvestigator wrote:How about a use of DF to protect property, as under PC 9.41? No requirement to show fear of your life there, either.

You are correct again. No requirement to show fear/imminent danger to you or others. Double tap him right there for stealing your ten-speed bike. You're protecting your property. In fact, forget double tap, shoot to slide lock. Or if they hook up to your trailered boat and start driving off with it. Sniper time. Yea, sure, the Insurance company would have covered your loss but then you wouldn't have gotten to drop the hammer on a scumbag.

Hey, since we're "what ifing": How about:
PC 9.31
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or
person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force
than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's
(or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than
necessary.


You're doing nothing wrong, driving home after winning the IDPA Nationals. After a late dinner, back on the road, driving home to Texas and get pulled over by a young, overzealous newly minted sheriff's deputy who figures if you're out at this late hour you're either up to no good or drunk. You pull over, offer no resistance, in fact, you're polite and have your window down. He orders you out of the car and you get slammed against the hood for no apparent reason and/or have a taser or night stick pointed at you. Maybe his hand is on his firearm - a deadly force threat in anybodies book. Sounds to me that the officer is using - or is attempting to use greater force than necessary. Looks like use of force on your part is justified per PC 9.32 (c).

BUT, Since 9.32 (c) says you CAN do it, That doesn't mean you should do it. Maybe a better idea is to try to defuse/de-escalate the situation.

You know something, anything, even "whoa son, that thing may be loaded, let's talk".

That would be much better than mozambiqing Barney.

My point was that just because you CAN shoot per the PC doesn't mean you SHOULD in and of itself.

The responsibility that comes with a CHL includes not only knowing when to shoot, but also knowing when NOT to shoot.

Just because you have a hammer doesn't make everything a nail.

The issue - IMO is determining the nature of the threat. Plain and simple, if you feel your life or the life of another is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, you can use deadly force to protect yourself or others.

The aftermath of a shooting can be scarier than the shooting itself for a number of reasons. Psychologically, Financially, Emotionally...

Learning avoidance and when NOT to shoot is every bit as important as being able to determine when TO shoot - and being able to stop the threat from doing what you started shooting it for in the first place.

CaptDave wrote:And, I'll admit that in my effort to get my point across that shooting someone over a cell phone would be pretty stupid I did not use chapter 9 legalese in order to get the main point across that YOU DON'T SHOOT SOMEONE FOR STEALING YOUR CELL PHONE.

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery

CaptDave wrote:

TEXASGIANT wrote: Probably not one of my wisest decisions but I have made up my mind that I will not give up anything I have if there is any option other than my own death. I don't care if the phone was free and out of minutes "I aint givin it up".

Besides what everyone else has already said, you MUST be in fear of your life before you can start "putting holes in him"