TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I rarely answer these types of questions, but the scenario presented is pretty clear. To an experienced eye, this was clearly a robbery in the making and the OP's action appeared reasonable in response to this threat. I think the case Steve was talking about is McDermott that erroneously held that the only defense to intentional failure to conceal by a CHL (TPC §46.035(a)) is the ability to actually use deadly force. McDermott was wrongly held and thankfully it only applies to that particular appellate jurisdiction, although it is "persuasive authority" all over Texas. (It was a Court of Appeals case, not a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals case.)

McDermott ignored TPC §9.04 that allows the threat of force to defuse a potentially deadly confrontation. Unless I'm mistaken, there still is no Texas appellate decision dealing directly with the scope of §9.04. It was taken from the Model Penal Code, the comments to which state that one can threaten the use of deadly force, even if only non-lethal force could be used. The rationale is to allow people to make the aggressor aware that the intended victim can and will use deadly force if it becomes necessary. During my last in-person CHL Instructor course in Austin, a now-retired DPS Lt. gave an example of this precise use of the threat of deadly force in a scenario where deadly force would not yet be justified. He noted this was authorized by TPC §9.04. Again, I haven't researched §9.04 in a good while, so the Lt. and I may be mistaken.

As Diesel42 noted, the presence of a young child in the van is a factor, a major factor in my view. As to what I would physically do, it's hard to say, but I think the OP's actions were reasonable, but I would have added an element of verbal compliance. Since I use and teach a draw stroke that makes a retention or "break away" shot easy, I probably wouldn't have drawn my handgun, but I certainly would have had my hand on it ready to respond quickly.

Chas.

BTW: I am an attorney, but I'm not yours so this isn't legal advice, just my opinion.