TexasCHLforum.com

Odin wrote: Not to mention we managed to survive the last 6000 years without the things

Dragonfighter wrote:I have had a few hand-to-hand situations wherein OC was utilized. I have to date prevailed, but...

I have seen it used where the BG was drugged (PCP) and it had little effect. It was used by a small female LEO and it was my partner and myself that actually ended up in the fight. The OC did not slow the guy down and the fight was a hard one. We burned all night long after that one.

One instance was an MHMR person where both of us were hit. I trained extensively with CS several (>25) years ago so I was able to function which was good. It was in a small house and the LEO effectively took himself out of the fight and managed to agitate the BG. I was riding with a different partner who vacated when he saw the OC come out. I managed to pretzle the yo-yo and coax my partner back in with some tape. I was out of service for about three hours after that one.

There are a few more examples but in my experience OC is ineffective with someone who is chemically or emotionally altered. Depending on the environment the potential to disable yourself as well as the BG is very real.

I am fairly diplomatic. I will (and have) chose diplomacy anytime that the situation's urgency level allows. I have talked myself out of more trouble than I care to admit. If I can not de-escalate the situation, I would have to consider the possibility that OC would not serve either.

Lykoi wrote:seriously.. this is a gross oversight of your instructor to not truly define these issues...


http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf


please read and reread this... there are a few more sections you need to understand... but these cover your specific question... try and work through the legaleese... but if you need clearer definitions, feel free to ask.

§ 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is
immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm
clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of
reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law
proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification
claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(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.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

Odin wrote:I can't imagine a situation where I would take out OC and spray someone. What sort of scenarios are people getting in to where they are being threatened enough to use force, but not threatened seriously enough to warrant defending themselves by producing their handgun?

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Elotemuygrande wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:Your justification comes in the vagueries of the law. Terms like "reasonable" are key. Do you "reasonably" fear for your life or seriously bodily harm.

Disparity of force is another concept. A little old lady wanting to kick your tail is one thing, the same little old lady wielding a baseball bat is another.

I believe the first CHL shooting in Texas was the one that occured on the Mockingbird bridge in Dallas. A 370# Samoan got bent at a light and came back yelling at a 150-160# CHLr. The BG (unarmed) reached into the car and started to pound our intrepid test case who then dropped him with one shot center mass.

Typical press demonization occured, but the articles were pushed further back the more facts that were known. The BG was dead on the spot, and the Good Guy was no billed. I was sold on the .40 S&W.

Those vague statements are precisely what worries me when I try to read the law :) My sense of "reasonable" and degree of "imminent harm" that I would wish to avoid might differ from that of a jury or responding police.

That depends on whether you consider yourself to be a reasonable person or not.

Dragonfighter wrote:Your justification comes in the vagueries of the law. Terms like "reasonable" are key. Do you "reasonably" fear for your life or seriously bodily harm.

Disparity of force is another concept. A little old lady wanting to kick your tail is one thing, the same little old lady wielding a baseball bat is another.

I believe the first CHL shooting in Texas was the one that occured on the Mockingbird bridge in Dallas. A 370# Samoan got bent at a light and came back yelling at a 150-160# CHLr. The BG (unarmed) reached into the car and started to pound our intrepid test case who then dropped him with one shot center mass.

Typical press demonization occured, but the articles were pushed further back the more facts that were known. The BG was dead on the spot, and the Good Guy was no billed. I was sold on the .40 S&W.

Lykoi wrote:

Elotemuygrande wrote:The CHL class that I took was VERY weak on legal issues(IMHO) and the actual laws are a bit unclear to me.

Assuming that someone larger than yourself charges you with only fists and feet. Legally speaking only, would one be in trouble if the gun came out as a threat only? if it were used? If a person is larger than yourself and in better apparent condition then if you waited until you were losing the fight an in serious danger of harm you might be in no condition to pull a gun without it being taken.

I'm trying to figure out how best to carry OC where it can be quickly deployed in situations like this but I would also like to know the legality of the use of the pistol. I notice a large number of very large guys who seem to have a very healthy dislike for those not of their kind when I'm walking through the Walmart parking lot a few blocks away so I got to wondering about options if I were threatened by one of them... I also like going on long walks for exercise occasionally so I run into more of a mix of people.

What was your instructor's name??? b/c this is flat out a blatant disregard for the job he took and is "qualified" to teach... he's liable to a point if he's misinformed or failed to inform you of this... I've got a really easy to read short synopsis on TX carry... it's not here though, but i'll try and PM it to you later...

Instructors who fail to do their jobs are subject to loss of instructor license, fine, and even prison time... it's no joke to slack when your job is to teach others about the legal ramifications of CHL