TexasCHLforum.com

Middle Age Russ wrote:A firearm is a force option most of us here on the forum have chosen to carry against the extremely small risk we'll ever have to employ it in need. Sound tactics help mitigate the risks of needing to use the gun, but sound tactics cannot eliminate all risks. I would generally agree with Solaris that the defender at the gas station did not employ the best tactics possible and the risk of having to use the gun was not eliminated as a result and the gun was used. I also agree with most others that results matter, and in the end the defender resorted to the tactic of employing deadly force which effectively stopped the threat.

Decisions have consequences, and the decisions of the defender ultimately helped narrow his choices down to the point that deadly force was necessary. He'll have to live with that, but at least he came out of the confrontation with that ability. The aggressor's decisions produced consequences he was not able to live through.

... and I said as much on page 1. This is my exact opinion.

As for the non-H2H crowd.... Keep in mind the point I made earlier. IMO It's not a primary option for and OCer, and 2, unless you are completely versed in how it works, it's not something you should attempt unless it's forced on you. However, if you know what you are doing, you could completely incapacitate someone quite easily (particularly someone drunk) and very quickly. But again.... It is a force-option, just like your weapon is and it's generally considered less-lethal. Like your weapon though, it shouldn't be an option at all unless you have some understanding to it.

I obviously agree with Mike and Keith and have posted such above. Once the BG turns his attention to the shooter, his actions begin to justify not only a legal "display" (or brandishing) of his weapon, which then escalates to a legal use "use of DF" once the attacker continues to pursue. I think that we can all be in agreement that there were things that the shooter could have done to deescalate or not to interject himself into a argument that wasn't his in the first place.

All that aside, I think that both those guys bring up another very important element..... Disparity of force is a very real legal concept here at play here. The attacker does appear physically larger and stronger than the shooter which makes it a very real possibility that he (shooter) would have been overcome and had his weapon used against him. That totally makes a difference in justification. Disparity of force is obviously not just size thing either, as age, physical conditioning, sex, # of attackers...etc is at play too. So any "what would you do" scenario has to be looked at through your personal lens. For example.... I'm at least the size of the attacker, and I have H2H training, so my use of deadly force threshold is likely to be higher than a smaller person for instance? It also changes with age, I'm pushing 50, which is not old, but I ain't as tough as I used to be...... 20 years ago, in a scenario like this.... I would have delivered serious beat-down and had no question about using DF. However... being older, I've lost a step and am not nearly as physically strong as I used to be. That's the whole reason I have chosen to CC most everyplace nowadays and it become more important with each passing day.

Solaris wrote:I looked hard, but I cannot find anything the instructor did right. I find it amazing he was not charged.

First he was oblivious it seemed to the agitated man for the first few minutes, turning his back on him several times, while OPEN CARRYING!

Then he went out into parking lot, inserting himself into a dispute which was not his, thus escalating it, and in my opinion, making him a part of the problem.

Then instead of trying to descalate it by leaving area, he comes back into store and of course is followed, and he immediately goes to gun when there is no deadly threat whatsoever. A pushing match ensues, and with gun in hand he can no longer effectively push back so he shoots the guy.

I would say this a a textbook training video of what not to do when open carrying.

Well, yes and no...

I definitely agree on the initial oblivion and the deescalation points (as I stated above), but from a legal standpoint, not sure if he would be criminally liable. Depends if LA has SYG laws in place. If so, he has no duty to retreat. Unless the audio shows that he actually provoked the guy, than not sure he really did anything legally wrong. Don't get me wrong, his actions certainly did not deescalate the situation and likely led to the shooting as you state, but that does not translate to criminally responsible (at least in SYG states).

I also agree about the drawing of his weapon, which effectively left him only a one-handed H2H response and further made the shooting inevitable when the in BG pursued. But again, the question remains.... does that make him criminally responsible. I don't think so. The drawing of his weapon (IMO) was a defensive display of force, which was likely (here in TX anyway) justified to meet a threatening situation from the attacker. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that his "use of force" could be justified as a deterrent when the BG was still, in essence, just a menacing threat. It did not work in this case and the BG pursued a course of action that escalated the defendant to a position that make him believe that a use of deadly force was authorized. I certainly think that a more than "reasonable" case could be make by the victim that he felt in imminent danger when the attacker pursued H2H combat against his drawn weapon. Only the jury would determine that, but reasonable arguments could be made either way and his position would be a strong one.

So bottom line, I'm not sure I'd go so far to say that I'm "amazed" he wasn't charged, as the DA would have a tough time getting a conviction on this one IMO. Assuming LA has reasonably similar laws as TX does for SYG, use of force, etc.... He has no "duty to retreat" so the fact that he doesn't doesn't necessarily mean a thing. I don't necessarily think that the victim (shooter) going out to the parking lot necessarily demonstrates a provocation either. Looks like he was just attempting to get the BG's plate info, which is a perfectly legal thing to do. He should have been more discrete IMO, but again.... that's a responsible action vs. criminal action thing to me. Of course, this assumes that the audio doesn't change everything to show provocation from the shooter.

Overall though, I agree with much of what you said... the shooting certainly did not NEED to occur and the shooters actions probably increased the chances of a deadly encounter.... I think a beat down would have sufficed in this case personally. The whole incident IMO was not worth killing or dying over for sure.

Yeah... This is a tough one for me. And one in which I can honestly say, that I would probably have handled it separately depending on which way I was carrying. Since this was an open carry event. I'll start there. First off, I would attempted not To interject myself in the initial dispute as much. Would have probably been a little more discrete in obtaining the plate number, etc.. I would've (or tried to) just fade into the background A bit and observed from a distance. Much less likely that the BG would have even noticed my presence, or even turned his attention my way. Be a good witness first is always the best course if it's a legitimate option. In this case I think it was.

Once the attacker turned his attention to the shooter though, I thought the shooter handled it pretty well. The BG knows, or should know, that the shooter is armed, and more importantly where his weapon is kept because it's openly displayed. His continued aggression definitely poses a threat. The shooter shows just enough restraint before shooting him to display that he obviously was not itching to take the guy down. You can no way afford to become involved in a H2H scrum with a weapon on your hip and an aggressive, non-armed BG. Your weapon, could very easily become his weapon.

With that said, if I was handling it as a concealed carrier, I probably would've considered delivering an ole fashioned butt-whooping on what appears to be a drunk and impaired guy (appears to me to be a bit unsteady, and initially was buying beer). One well landed punch, would have likely taken this guy down. But then again I'm a bigger guy so the disparity of force likley favor me and I'm fairly skilled in H2H tactics. When somebody is continuing to attack a known armed person who's weapon is clearly in a known (to the BG) location, any H2H situation could end up deadly for me so use of deadly force is an inevitable option once he puts his hands on me. Concealed though, the BG has no idea where or how you are carrying, or if you're carirying at all and, in my mind, that gives you the advantage, more options and the ability to assess whether you could take the BG down with non-lethal tactics.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against OC, but in this situation I think being concealed would have been a much better advantage to the shooter and it may have, and I stress may have, turned out differently.