TexasCHLforum.com

Humanphibian wrote:Roger That!

I have been keeping very close tabs on him. I (with a little help from my friends )keep an eye on his comings and goings. He has gone back into that state that givers me that "calm before the storm" feeling. We have adjusted our daily lives to anticipate and/or accommodate his craziness.

All is good for now.......

Let's hope the calm continues.

I wish you the best in any case. You've already been through more rough times than anyone should have to put up with.

____
/ 6 \

Chappell

Humanphibian wrote:

We are still dealing with this guy. We had court last week to modify his visitation (our petition) and to answer a contempt charge he made regarding the property that he declined to pick up (on more than one occasion....with LEO present). As anticipated, when he learned about his decrease in "pay"....he hit the roof. This led to another round of harassing calls, texts, and a few tense encounters around town. All has been tolerable so far.

In the hearings last week, he got his visitation revoked, 2 year protective order is now in place....and he didn't get the property. He pretty much had his posterior handed to him in the courtroom. Hearings for the 4 harassment counts and the assault charge are scheduled for early December. We have been in contact with the D.A. numerous times regarding these matters and have been informed they are going to insist on jail time for each charge. They are going to offer a less than maximum if he will plead guilty, but they will not take jail off the table. He will be given one shot to accept the deal, if not it will go to trial.

the saga continues........

The pressure on him is increasing, and the reality of where he stands is becoming increasingly hard to ignore. It is a sensitive time in these types of situations. He may elect to get real, deal with the charges, and move on with life, or he may decide to strike out at those he sees as having caused the mess he created and its consequences. There's no way I know of to predict which way it will go.

I know you don't need to be reminded not to let your guard down, but be especially watchful between now and the beginning of his incarceration, and during the time between his release and his settling into a new job / residence / relationship.

Mark F wrote:I can't even fathom what I would do in your situation. You certainly performed well, and you made the best possible out-come under the circumstances. The down side is, it isn't over...

IF you are lucky, maby he will be terminated by someone else during one of his other illegal activities.

MarkF wrote:He has been quiet as a church mouse this week. Not even a word.

People are complex, and not all subjects who behave as the aggressor in this post has go on to attempt homicide. Some have an epiphany along the way and recognize it's in their best interests to find something else to do. Others start a new unhealthy relationship which serves to focus their energy on it and they lose interest in former relationships. The reverse is also true - The reported end of one such relationship appears to have coincided with escalated activity here.

While it would be unwise to drop one's guard on the assumption that all will turn out well, in some cases it actually does. Only time will tell.

i-c-mike wrote:
Excaliber wrote:
1. IANAL, but from the facts as presented, I don't see a clean case for use of deadly force under the circumstances (no weapon, multiple attackers, disparity of force, etc.). One could make an argument that a single punch to the temple could create serious bodily injury, but it wouldn't be clear cut by any means. Keeping it on the hand to hand level even though you were armed showed great restraint. I hope this was documented in the police report - it may well come in handy later. Folks without your level of physical fitness and skill might well not have had this option, but you did and you used it to come out of the situation about as successfully as is possible under the circumstances. Outstanding work!

...

It would be wise to regard him as extremely dangerous. Special precautions should be taken at the two places where one can most predictably be found - at home and in the workplace. In your individual circumstances, there may be others as well (the gym, for instance). The danger will remain as long as the subject is focused on you and yours.
I am only speaking for myself...
While this is an interesting analysis, the first and last points are contradictory. Anyone who is extremely dangerous, and is attacking you justifies deadly force, provided that you were in fear for your life (I know I would be, I am way past my H2H days)

I lived this exact situation (wife's ex) in a state where all the law abiding citizens were disarmed, and deadly force was a remote and dicey option (from a legal standpoint) in the home. We had plenty of situations (especially the wife) where she lived in fear of what he was going to do next. This went on for 12 years. It's hard to make that call at the front end of the situation, but 12 yrs later, I would make no apologies for using the word "opportunity".

It sounds like the original poster (like we were) is forced to walk on eggshells around this guy until he decides that he doesn't want to be a bother anymore.

My heart goes out to you and your family, and may God get you thorough this.

Welcome to the forum!

I empathize with the situation you and your wife suffered through. It apparently has some parallels with what Humanphibian is contending with, and I've seen all too many situations like it. However, this mustn't be allowed to cloud your thinking when making judgments on whether or not to use deadly force in a given circumstance.

Juxtaposition of two quotes taken out of context from my multiple posts in this thread may create the appearance of a contradiction. However, the statements in context are not contradictory.

The first analysis of whether or not justification for the use of deadly force existed at the time of the first incident was based on what was known at that time, and what happened during the incident. I stand by my analysis - there was no clear justification for use of deadly force at that moment, and Humanphibian used outstanding judgment and tactics to successfully recover from a dangerous situation..

The second later statement suggested a reasonable threat assessment posture based on the fact that the subject had escalated from a history of repeated verbal threats of violence to a physical attack on one occasion, and other information provided after the original incident which spelled out other risk factors for continued or escalated hostile activity.

There is an enormous functional difference between regarding someone as extremely dangerous for countermeasure planning purposes and having legal justification to use deadly force against that person. '' For example, even if you reasonably regard a person as dangerous, if he pushes or shoves you (unlawful attacks in both cases) this alone would not constitute justification to employ deadly force against him.

On the other hand, justification has to be based on articulable intent, ability, and jeopardy to inflict serious bodily harm or death on an innocent party in a given situation at a particular time in a particular place.

A reasonable belief that someone is dangerous and justification for deadly force may exist together at the same time, and again they may not.

A CHL holder is legally responsible for knowing when justification actually exists and when it doesn't. Even when justification is present, use of deadly force is often not the best option when other ways to navigate the situation safely are available. It should only be used as a last resort when there is no other reasonable way to preserve innocent life.

Humanphibian wrote: My girl had expressed interest in learning to shoot prior to this event. Now.....she is chomping at the bit. She wants to get her a carry gun, learn how to "shoot" (not just operate her gun, and punch holes in paper), and get her CHL. I have spoken with Crossfire about getting her in the CHL class with them, and possibly even do the NRA Basic Pistol course. Crossfire was GREAT. I took my renewal with Linda and Marty, and the class was wonderful. I dont think it would be possible to find a better instructor "fit" for my Fiancee.

I suspect you didn't have to go into any long explanations about why a civilian would want a CHL......

CainA wrote:
The_Vigilante wrote:I hate to say this but this guy sounds like bad news and he may be better off out of the picture as far as you are concerned. As long as he is alive he is going to be a thorn in your side and someone you are always going to have to worry about and watch your back for.
Yeah, that guy sounds kinda scary to me.

With all the history you have with this guy, if the opportunity (defending yourself) presents itself, I don't see you having a problem getting no-billed.

-Cain

Reality / Legality Check:

Use of deadly force in self defense is not an "opportunity" to eliminate an ongoing problem with a troublesome individual - it is a last resort when all other means have been exhausted and there is no other reasonable way to prevent imminent death or serious physical injury to an innocent person.

For the legitimate defender, the aftermath is still unpleasant or traumatic, longlasting, and expensive, even if his actions are eventually ruled justifiable - which may take quite a while. No sane and moral person would take this action in circumstances other than absolute necessity in a critical situation.

dihappy wrote: IF i knew he was coming over, and STILL decided to be outside knowing his past and that the situation could escalate, i would have been armed with OC spray, knife, and weapon and used them as needed.

Since this was not a deadly force encounter, I agree that an appropriate OC weapon would have been a very nice option to have - it could have been used to resolve the aggression without physical contact. However, as the threads on use of OC products point out, OC spray in a garage setting would almost certainly affect both the target and the user, which would degrade the user's ability to handle a continuing encounter if the OC didn't disable the aggressor. This happens quite often.

Kimber's LifeAct product, which uses a tiny pyrotechnic charge to eject OC in non aerosol liquid form in a very tight pattern out to a distance of 13 feet would be a good choice for this situation. I'll have to post a review on my testing of that device.

This post leaves me a bit curious, though - at what stage of escalation would you bring the knife into play, and how would you use it - as a step between OC and a firearm, as a last ditch option if you lost control of the gun, or in some other role?

dihappy wrote:My Monday Night Quarterbacking says that you should never have been up on a ladder knowing he was on his way.

Humanphibian acknowledged in his very early posts that this was a major tactical error. Once it's been made and the situation is rolling, you can't call an alibi and go with a do over - you have to manage the circumstances you face. Being prepared to recognize and overcome errors is part of tactical preparation, and I think Humanphibian did an outstanding job recovering from this one.

I need to get time to research the POD idea.

I think you'll find the POD solution relatively expensive. A similar effect could be achieved by simply renting a local storage unit, putting the stuff in it, and mailing him the key to the lock via certified mail w/return receipt. This shouldn't create a credit problem if you pay for the period defined in the rental agreement, which typically contains language for what happens to goods left in storage units whose agreements have expired without extension and payment, but it would be worthwhile to check the details with the storage company before going this route.

A simpler and almost certainly cheaper solution would be to make an arrangement with a small local truck outfit to pick it up from you at a certain date and time and deliver it to him at a certain date and time. Provide him with several days advance certified mail w/return receipt notice of the delivery and the trucking firm's contact info in case he needs to make other arrangements and let him worry about being there when it arrives. Include in the letter that only one delivery attempt has been paid for and any additional arrangements and charges for redelivery or storage will be his responsibility or his goods will be disposed of according to the trucking firm's policy for unclaimed goods. Make the same arrangements with the trucking firm and include a provision to get a copy of the delivery receipt, and you should be good to go.

This situation happed in the county adjoining ours....less than 90 days ago!

This is an absolutely classic example of why I was so concerned about the circumstances in your case. I know you're not taking it lightly, and very justifiably so. The potential for a similar ending in your situation, while by no means certain, is very real.

Another Idea that I thought of last night. If you are working the Garage like this again keep the door opener in your pocket. That way you could hit the buttom from anyway inthe Garage.

Easily defeated. All you have to do is step through the safety beam, and it will reverse. Or grab the closing door and shove up with about 20 pounds of force, and it will reverse.

I understand that but what that does is delay the inturder long enough to maybe allow the home owner to get in the house

Both members have good thoughts here.

The tactic is good in that it attempts to introduce a barrier to rapid intrusion. Its effectiveness would be determined by how far down the door had gone by the time the intruder reached it, and how quickly he was able to to go through his OODA loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_Loop). Unless he reached the door while it was almost fully open and he could solve the situation unconsciously by walking through the safety beam, it could easily give the homeowner several extra seconds to move his plan along and just might end up with the BG locked outside and staring at a closed door.

It also beats the heck out of just leaving the door open.

I would also highly recommend Gavin De Becker's "The Gift of Fear,"

I emphatically endorse this suggestion. The author doesn't advocate the defensive use of firearms for personal reasons which become apparent at the beginning of the book. Aside from that, (nobody gets everything right) the book is very easy reading with lots of actual incident examples from a guy who makes his living protecting people from this type of activity.

Don’t dwell or beat yourself up for the actions taken. We can all sit here and be tactical keyboard commandos but in the action you don’t have the time to think though every possible action.

I emphatically agree. You only get one chance to handle any given incident. Whatever choices are made and actions taken, what really matters is the final outcome.

Post incident analysis, which attempts to learn from the past to minimize mistakes in the future, is very worthwhile, but by definition, it's only available in hindsight. The real deal happens in real time.

No incident is ever handled perfectly because there are always unknown and unpredictable elements that come into play - for example, the worst possible timing of the subject's arrival when Humanphibian was up on a ladder. Murphy rules, and some mistakes will always be made.

How well each opponent can move effectively through the OODA loop (observe / orient / decide / act) for each change in the situation has a huge impact on who prevails. The man with foresight, training, and a plan has a huge advantage here.

Yeah....It's been a busy day. Finacee works in outside sales and touches base at the house throughout the day. THIS is the biggest challenge. Considering making a rotating list of Starbucks her office for now. Have considered using a school too, as any weapon violation is federal deal. Not that he cares...but it couldnt hurt. I own my business, so I am covered there. As for daughter....she was sent to family farm with her Brother (USMC Lance Corp.). The farm is kind of a compound type deal with several "families" in the area and sharing adjoining land plots.

Good work again.

I'd suggest that your fiancee avoid the house as much as possible when you're not there too. It's helpful that the neighbors are all alert, but if an incident began it would likely be over before help could arrive, as you unfortunately saw first hand.

The Starbucks idea is pretty good as long as the location list is fairly long and they are visited randomly rather than in rotation. Other establishments with wireless access (e.g. some McDonalds) can be added as well for variety. She should familiarize herself with the exits (including those behind the counter - niceties don't apply in life threatening situations) in each one as she enters, and should sit in a position where she can watch both her vehicle and the entrance doors. The keys here would be early detection / rapid escape / evasion.

The school idea has some pluses and minuses. If the school is well secured, guarded by armed personnel who could be warned of the situation and serve as an effective barrier, and a nonpublic area is available for her work, these are all pluses. The minus would be that it is a single location that can be easily watched if the subject can successfully follow her there once, or otherwise learn that she visits regularly.

Arrangements for the daughter sound good. I'd still suggest including her school even if she's a distance away just in case.

******Daily Routes are changed, regular times for Gym, groceries, dry cleaners all changed. Local and County PD's and So's where work address are have been notified and supplied with his personal information. History of situation, along with current photos of him as well as vehicle were included.

You're doing a great job of hitting the major bases quickly.

You may also want to consider:

-Advising security / property management / company management at places of employment of the situation with descriptions of subject / vehicle / tag # and copies of photos if possible at monitored points of entry. If the protective order covered any of these places, putting a copy on file with them would be helpful.

-Providing same info to houses of worship (increasing numbers now have security teams) and schools (if children involved)

Excaliber wrote:
3. A castle doctrine defense would have been substantially muddied by the fact that the assailant had been invited to the property by the owners / leaseholders (even reluctantly under the circumstances) and the situation occurred in a garage with the door open and in proximity to the property to be picked up. Of course even an invited guest isn't allowed to commit a criminal attack on the property, but these facts could create a level of complexity that wouldn't be helpful and could be used to misrepresent what actually happened. Not needing the castle doctrine defense at all here is clearly the best position to be in..

*******This one was the sticky part. He was informed that his things would be on the sidewalk when he got there. I believed at the time and still do that Castle Doctrine would have applied in this case, as he drove past his belongings, within 2 feet, and instead chose to enter the residence with ill-intent. Invited.....maybe.....muddy circumstances.....SURE! This is not a court battle I would want to fight, but I think I would have prevailed under the circumstances, and with the history taken into consideration.

I agree you likely would have prevailed, but sticky = painful and expensive.

I'd like to offer my thanks to Humanphibian for sharing his complex and dynamic incident with the forum members. I think you reasoned your way through a most difficult incident, and you handled the situation extraordinarily well. There is a huge amount of material in your account that can be mined for productive discussion. I look forward to reading your own post incident review once things quiet down enough to allow reflection.

I will comment on just a few points initially:

1. IANAL, but from the facts as presented, I don't see a clean case for use of deadly force under the circumstances (no weapon, multiple attackers, disparity of force, etc.). One could make an argument that a single punch to the temple could create serious bodily injury, but it wouldn't be clear cut by any means. Keeping it on the hand to hand level even though you were armed showed great restraint. I hope this was documented in the police report - it may well come in handy later. Folks without your level of physical fitness and skill might well not have had this option, but you did and you used it to come out of the situation about as successfully as is possible under the circumstances. Outstanding work!

2. If the assailant had grabbed for the holstered weapon, or if the weapon had become dislodged from the holster and the assailant attempted to retrieve it, the situation would immediately have gone to the deadly force level.

3. A castle doctrine defense would have been substantially muddied by the fact that the assailant had been invited to the property by the owners / leaseholders (even reluctantly under the circumstances) and the situation occurred in a garage with the door open and in proximity to the property to be picked up. Of course even an invited guest isn't allowed to commit a criminal attack on the property, but these facts could create a level of complexity that wouldn't be helpful and could be used to misrepresent what actually happened. Not needing the castle doctrine defense at all here is clearly the best position to be in.

4. I very much agree with the other posts advising extra caution for both you and your fiance. Staying at Condition Orange is mandatory under the circumstances so you can routinely keep multiple barriers and lots of distance between you and him, and prepare options for the possibility that those barriers and distance may not be sufficient to prevent an attack.

People with the type of history you described for your attacker often become obsessed with injuring or killing the people they focus on. They operate at an emotional level where uncontrolled drives are very strong and rational consideration of negative consequences of actions (arrest, loss of income, property, freedom, etc.) are very weak. Use of intoxicating and / or mind altering substances further reduces any inhibitions they may have. Many of them see their victims as responsible for everything that is wrong in their own lives and do not plan a future beyond an attack, or plan to die through either police action or suicide immediately afterward (the "blaze of glory" ending). Their major go / no go decision at any given time is often based upon whether they think they can succeed in the goal of the attack (harm the victim), regardless of what happens to them afterwards.

Although each case is different and there is no way to predict with certainty how any given one will turn out, yours has a lot to be concerned about. Your assailant has shown a steady progression from low level harassment through an escalating series of threats and has now committed an unprovoked direct physical attack which for him, ended in retreat and humiliation. A deadly attack would be the next escalation on this continuum, with your fiance at particular risk (he could effectively hurt both by engaging the easier target and showing that he is in control after all).

It would be wise to regard him as extremely dangerous. Special precautions should be taken at the two places where one can most predictably be found - at home and in the workplace. In your individual circumstances, there may be others as well (the gym, for instance). The danger will remain as long as the subject is focused on you and yours.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 13 matches

Re: Had my first "incident" since getting my card a decade ago

Re: Had my first "incident" since getting my card a decade ago

Re: Had my first "incident" since getting my card a decade ago

Re: Had my first "incident" since getting my card a decade ago

Re: Had my first "incident" since getting my card a decade ago

Re: Had my first "incident" since getting my card a decade ago

Re: Had my first "incident" since getting my card a decade ago

Re: Had my first "incident" since getting my card a decade ago

Re: Had my first "incident" since getting my card a decade ago

Re: Had my first "incident" since getting my card a decade ago

Re: Had my first "incident" since getting my card a decade ago

Re: Had my first "incident" since getting my card a decade ago

Re: Had my first "incident" since getting my card a decade ago