Search found 7 matches

by Lykoi
Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:54 pm
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Stupid question: Justification against unarmed
Replies: 34
Views: 4329

Odin wrote:
Not to mention we managed to survive the last 6000 years without the things, I don't go into a panic when there's not a cell phone around.
I find my cell phone is more valuable a tool 99% of the time than the firearm i'm carrying...

I've taken photos of bg's and even a license plate that helped Arlington PD find a guy who tried to shoot someone.

I've called in domestic disturbances on my old neighbors when he decided to show her he was a "man"...

I've called in multiple car wrecks, a heart attack, several "drunk drivers" while i was a bouncer, a guy who drunk when he left a gas station i walked into, and even when i "happened" upon the guy who was riding my stolen motorcycle... in all these cases my phone was used to prevent someone from losing their life, taking another's life, causing injury to another, or to report a crime.

I've drawn my CCW once... i wouldn't be without it b/c that 1% is all it takes to make the other 99% unimportant...

you should always have the phone for multiple reasons...

you can call for help... if you're outnumbered, cornered, anything you might NEED help, the ability to get it is paramount to your "having one more thing on the belt"

You might witness a crime and be able to follow/identify the suspect... waiting for the police might allow a worse crime to be committed.

There a method to track your phone's location if you are in trouble... I've accidentally dialed 911 on one occasion (don't ask how) and before i knew i'd done it, there were to local LEO's at my door knocking.

If you do use your CCW in defense of yourself, who's to say the BG won't survive and need an ambulance... who's to say you won't be the one injured and need that ambulance? When you're bleeding out and the BG who shot you runs off, are you going to think "man i'm glad i wasn't inconvenienced by falling on one of those "damn cell phones".

In the end it's another tool.. one you should carry every time you walk outside... If you don't "like them" get "good reception" then your choice is what effects your life... but not carrying a cell phone makes less sense that not carrying a firearm.. as it doesn't matter if your finger is on the "trigger" or where you point it... no training is really needed, and not many safety issues or classes to take to learn to use it to prevent/stop a crime.

If you care enough to be armed, be armed for the majority of situations and not the minority.
by Lykoi
Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:03 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Stupid question: Justification against unarmed
Replies: 34
Views: 4329

Elotemuygrande wrote: You would never hear x is an integer if a reasonable person believes it to be an integer :)

LOL!!!!

I'm starting my master this fall, finishing degree #2 this spring... and there's no application of philosophy or English to the "law"...

First we must decide what constitutes the ability to reason?
I think therefore I am... but if i am thinking, might it all be a mere illusion...
blah blah blah!!! Then we could get into a debate on what exactly the author MEANT without saying it..
by Lykoi
Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:23 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Stupid question: Justification against unarmed
Replies: 34
Views: 4329

Elotemuygrande wrote: As an adult, I haven't had anyone physically attack me, but on a number of occasions it has been close. On a couple of occasions I've had people follow me to a parking lot after inadvertently cutting them off in traffic or similar and begin screaming at me. These situations were diffused when I stepped out of the car, towered over them(I'm tall) and mumbled an apology. Most road rage situations would end like this but who knows if the next one will calm down when I start talking or start breaking through my windshield. In a situation like that(senseless conflict, with it unlikely that they are armed) I would prefer to spray them(if they were larger than I) or knock them down(if they were smaller) if they became threatening rather than threatening them with a firearm.

I've also run into a couple of situations where I was walking through a dark area and I heard something similar to "I hate white boys" along with a threatening look which thankfully did not escalate because my brother and I suppressed our reactions. Those kinds of people might not want to rob or kill you(you presume, but do not know) but might be looking for someone to beat up on. OC would be a nice option there too if you could not walk away from them as I have been able to before.
several more examples of situations where more tools = more options.
by Lykoi
Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:18 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Stupid question: Justification against unarmed
Replies: 34
Views: 4329

Odin wrote: When I'm walking around in my everyday street clothes I'm already carrying on my belt or in my pockets my car keys (required), a folding knife (used almost daily), sometimes a cell phone (used daily, carried sometimes), a holstered firearm and sometimes a spare magazine in a belt pouch.
the fact that you will ALWAYS carry a hangun and not always have your cell phone means you aren't carrying proper tools all the time.
The only item there that won't be used daily is the handgun, and the handgun is the only item I know of that in a worst case scenario if the a problem arises can be used to stop an immediate threat on and save my life or the life of a person with me.
If all you have is a hammer, then EVERY problem begins to look like a nail
I'm not saying that OC isn't a useful item, but how much stuff should I be reasonably expected to carry around on my person on a daily basis? I'm not discounting OC or other items as useful, but compromises must be made in the name of practicality (otherwise we'd all be carrying shotguns).
you not expected to carry ANYTHING... you choose to carry what you want... you don't seem to mind having a handgun, but no way to call for LE if the situation demands it... OC is simply ANOTHER tool... it's a way to deal with some situations where you can't legally justify shooting someone... I once had a drunk person use my front tire as a toilet.. he refused to move despite my being in the vehicle, and he began yelling profanity at me through the headlights... i'm not about to shoot some moron for urinating on my truck, but i'm not going to let him block my exit, abuse my property and yell threats (however idle) at me while i'm trying to leave... he got the spray, and he deserved it...

OC is a two edged sword, no you don't "need" it... but it can be useful when you feel the situation does not call for you to shoot the person. It's also dangerous as if used ineffectively it can incapacitate you and leave you open to an escalated attack in which you now have less ability to control your firearm or see your target.. it's not for everyone, but it's simply another tool...

however your cell phone should be on you at all times when you think carrying is necessary. It's the only method you might have to prevent greater injury to others etc...
by Lykoi
Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:15 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Stupid question: Justification against unarmed
Replies: 34
Views: 4329

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.
by Lykoi
Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:40 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Stupid question: Justification against unarmed
Replies: 34
Views: 4329

okay if he's bigger than you, you're in a disadvantaged situation... but unless he's coming after you with a weapon the OC would be my recommendation...

If he's WAY bigger than you and you truly feel he means to KILL you and not simply "teach you a lesson" SHOOT HIM... SHOOT HIM TIL HE STOPS!

There's no "clear line" when the attacker is unarmed... it's about your assessment of the situation.. shooting someone should always be the last resort, but if you wait until you're already losing the battle... i.e. down on the ground, in a hold, down to one hand. If this happens you stand less chance to defend yourself without the danger of losing your life.

If the attacker has a knife, SHOOT IMMEDIATELY... there's been more than one study on knives within 20ft... they can attack and do serious injury before you even get your weapon out.

OC to me is a tool much like my handgun... if you only carry a hammer every problem looks like a nail, they say... The OC is great for dogs, drunks, etc... If your intention is to threaten me i'll probably spray you for soing so... if you touch me, you're getting it for sure... but if i think this is a situation where you want more than to take a swing, it's not the OC you'll be seeing...

This again should have been covered in detail in your class... and despite the "blurred lines" it's not all that hard to make a plan of action and have that be a legal/justified action that ensures you protect your life...


read this http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf, print it, study it... it's not a coaster it's the difference between going home after surviving an attack and going to jail.
by Lykoi
Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:30 am
Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
Topic: Stupid question: Justification against unarmed
Replies: 34
Views: 4329

Re: Stupid question: Justification against unarmed

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

Return to “Stupid question: Justification against unarmed”