TexasCHLforum.com

exbellicus wrote:From a legal standpoint is it advisable to give your side of the report to the officer without your lawyer present? I see that it worked out fine in this situation, but if the officer had believed the aggressor's side of the story and charged kingpinGT it could have been used against him later. Maybe one of your LEOs can chime in, but if kingpinGT had refused to give a statement, would you have detained and charged him?

The guy who calls first is generally assumed to be the good guy unless proven otherwise.

The OP made the first call. Since he was the complainant, he wanted to give a statement to give the officer the facts to investigate.

In this situation with no shots fired there's little risk in doing so.

TEA wrote:I'm glad everything worked out OK in the end for you and your family. I agree with those that say it is easy to Monday Morning QB your actions, but discussing this type of scenario is very helpful to all of us, because as more than one member has posted, we tend to react to situations in the manner that we've rehearsed, whether that be physically and mentally or just mentally. Lots of very good advice and discussion. I especially like the advice about the use of headlights and horn.

To throw my $0.02 in (I'm new to CCW but have been studying and teaching unarmed self defense for over 30 years). First, make sure you unbuckle your seat belt as soon as you put your car in park. Also, if at all possible, get on the phone with 911 as soon as you perceive a threat (preferably your wife in your situation but yourself if you are alone). This not only enables the police to get there sooner if need be but also gets a recording of the event as it transpires. Have the person on the phone provide detailed descriptions of the car, drive and driver's actions.

With regards to the backing up and turning around option, a lot of that depends on the circumstances. While this may have been your best option, once the other driver had left his vehicle, the opportunity to retreat safely narrowed significantly. By exiting the vehicle, he presented at least the perception of hostile intent. Most residential streets require one to at least execute a three point turn in order to U turn, if not more depending on how narrow the street is, if there are other cars parked on the street and the turning radius of one's vehicle. In order to turn around, one would have to expose the passenger side of one's car to other driver. The OP has no way of knowing if the other driver is armed or not, and attempting a U turn while the other driver is already out of his car would expose passengers to the potential of gunfire from the other driver. Even if he was not armed, if he chose to attack the vehicle's occupants, the passengers would be his nearest victims during a U turn attempt. Think of the actions of the angry motorcyclists in NYC a couple of months back. Even after they dragged the driver out of the car and started beating him, some of the bikers went after the wife.

Excalibur's comments about perception and memory are spot on and not only illustrate challenges to situational awareness under stress but also the problems with eye witness testimony. Not only is our perception of events around us selective, our memories are not fixed, but rather, change over time and can be influenced by new information (true or false) suggested after an event has been perceived.

From a tactical perspective, I think stopping the threat before he advanced all the way to your vehicle was sound. However, it may be safer legally to wait until he is actually banging on your window before warning him off by stating that one is armed. Any legal scholars care to weigh in on this.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... 9.htm#9.04
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... 9.htm#9.31

As you correctly point out, a U turn may well be way too slow if an aggressor is advancing on your vehicle.

However, backing up on a lightly traveled street is a very viable option and one that is taught to police officers who find themselves suddenly confronted by an approaching aggressor. You can back up faster than the aggressor can run, you maintain the partial cover of your vehicle, and your action demonstrates your intent to disengage. Every step he takes toward your position takes him further from the safety and comfort of his own vehicle, as well as providing strong evidence of his aggressive intent.

The time to make the U turn is when he stops advancing and you have enough distance between you do execute it safely.

kingpinGT wrote:

eztarget wrote:Very interesting read. read almost all of this and I am new to it all. I have one comment about some posts that state "the aggressor left his weapon when he left his car". How do you know he was not carrying a weapon as well? In my CHL class I saw a picture of a horrific Knife attack on what we were told was a LEO.

bringing back my old topic, that was my initial justification of drawing my weapon. I didn't know what he was doing, what he had, or what his intentions were. He acted aggressively towards me and my family, and I responded with what I felt was necessary to stop him in his tracks.

Side note, this dude was a fool. Literally every person in my car with the exception on my infant daughter has their CHL and 2 of us(myself and my wife) were armed... granted she forgot where her pistol was stowed in the heat of the moment, but still....

Having a CHL of no help during an emergency unless one brings the firearm with him, knows where it is, and knows when and how to use it.

In the situation described in your post, you were the only one who was actually armed.

texanjoker wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

kingpinGT wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

kingpinGT wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

Wes wrote:It's definitely good that everything turned out well, kudos for not being confrontational yourself and just trying to stop the problem advancing.

My concern with saying I'm armed in a situation like this is it almost seems like you potentially help the BG. What if he too has a gun but doesn't have it out yet? This might make him get it or take it out. Almost like a warning shot that causes further escalation. Don't know, hope to never encounter it myself.

One might consider saying "I'm prepared to defend my family and myself if attacked."

It conveys the necessary information without the hot button of mentioning a firearm.

It's a clear, very reasonable warning that sounds good on a 911 tape, and the controlled ambiguity is disconcerting to those who are not too chemically impaired to recognize it.

100% behind you on this, but I will say this: I honestly don't even remember what I said. I do remember saying "I am armed", and that was based on something a CHL instructor once told me to do.

other than that, I have no clue. I couldn't even really remember the color of the car

If you told the average person you couldn't remember the color of the car even though you were looking right at it, they'd accuse you of not telling the truth - but you are telling the truth.

The phenomenon that causes this lack of memory of something that was clearly within your view is called "inattentional blindness." You were intensely focused on the other driver who was the perceived threat. Other nonthreatening objects like the other driver's car were not important for determining whether you were about to be attacked or not. Your brain focused all your processing power on the threat, and discarded the other available visual information, even though it would have been readily recorded by a camera that was pointed at the same scene. In other words, you only remember seeing what you were looking at, even though other things were present and visible at the time.

People aren't cameras, and this is a very common perceptual phenomenon, even in non stressful situations. It is one of the things that makes the accounts of witnesses to the same event so often different, even though they were present at the same scene when it happened.

Fascinating. Kind of like a hyper tunnel vision? Seems like it could be dangerous in a multiple threat environment, no?

Yes, and that's another reason (besides tunnel vision) that officers are taught to move their heads to scan the environment during an encounter. Deliberately looking at the rest of the scene increases the chances of recognizing additional danger.

That goes back to the training we did in CA, but I have yet to see here in TX. After firing the course of fire, you scan for an additional threat before holstering.

We did the same in New York.

ssnstump wrote:Excaliber...Your insight is invaluable. Thank you.
These scenarios help us all. AND i absolutely concur with KiethB's post about selective...tunnel hearing, etc.

It's always gratifying to learn that my posts are helpful to someone.

Thanks for letting me know.

johncanfield wrote:

Excaliber wrote:..The phenomenon that causes this lack of memory of something that was clearly within your view is called "inattentional blindness." ..

I'll have to remember that phrase when my wife accuses me of not paying attention.

It won't help because it confirms her accusation that you were focused on something you considered more important than her.

She's not likely to take that well.

kingpinGT wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

kingpinGT wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

Wes wrote:It's definitely good that everything turned out well, kudos for not being confrontational yourself and just trying to stop the problem advancing.

My concern with saying I'm armed in a situation like this is it almost seems like you potentially help the BG. What if he too has a gun but doesn't have it out yet? This might make him get it or take it out. Almost like a warning shot that causes further escalation. Don't know, hope to never encounter it myself.

One might consider saying "I'm prepared to defend my family and myself if attacked."

It conveys the necessary information without the hot button of mentioning a firearm.

It's a clear, very reasonable warning that sounds good on a 911 tape, and the controlled ambiguity is disconcerting to those who are not too chemically impaired to recognize it.

100% behind you on this, but I will say this: I honestly don't even remember what I said. I do remember saying "I am armed", and that was based on something a CHL instructor once told me to do.

other than that, I have no clue. I couldn't even really remember the color of the car

If you told the average person you couldn't remember the color of the car even though you were looking right at it, they'd accuse you of not telling the truth - but you are telling the truth.

The phenomenon that causes this lack of memory of something that was clearly within your view is called "inattentional blindness." You were intensely focused on the other driver who was the perceived threat. Other nonthreatening objects like the other driver's car were not important for determining whether you were about to be attacked or not. Your brain focused all your processing power on the threat, and discarded the other available visual information, even though it would have been readily recorded by a camera that was pointed at the same scene. In other words, you only remember seeing what you were looking at, even though other things were present and visible at the time.

People aren't cameras, and this is a very common perceptual phenomenon, even in non stressful situations. It is one of the things that makes the accounts of witnesses to the same event so often different, even though they were present at the same scene when it happened.

Fascinating. Kind of like a hyper tunnel vision? Seems like it could be dangerous in a multiple threat environment, no?

Yes, and that's another reason (besides tunnel vision) that officers are taught to move their heads to scan the environment during an encounter. Deliberately looking at the rest of the scene increases the chances of recognizing additional danger.

kingpinGT wrote:

Excaliber wrote:

Wes wrote:It's definitely good that everything turned out well, kudos for not being confrontational yourself and just trying to stop the problem advancing.

My concern with saying I'm armed in a situation like this is it almost seems like you potentially help the BG. What if he too has a gun but doesn't have it out yet? This might make him get it or take it out. Almost like a warning shot that causes further escalation. Don't know, hope to never encounter it myself.

One might consider saying "I'm prepared to defend my family and myself if attacked."

It conveys the necessary information without the hot button of mentioning a firearm.

It's a clear, very reasonable warning that sounds good on a 911 tape, and the controlled ambiguity is disconcerting to those who are not too chemically impaired to recognize it.

100% behind you on this, but I will say this: I honestly don't even remember what I said. I do remember saying "I am armed", and that was based on something a CHL instructor once told me to do.

other than that, I have no clue. I couldn't even really remember the color of the car

If you told the average person you couldn't remember the color of the car even though you were looking right at it, they'd accuse you of not telling the truth - but you are telling the truth.

The phenomenon that causes this lack of memory of something that was clearly within your view is called "inattentional blindness." You were intensely focused on the other driver who was the perceived threat. Other nonthreatening objects like the other driver's car were not important for determining whether you were about to be attacked or not. Your brain focused all your processing power on the threat, and discarded the other available visual information, even though it would have been readily recorded by a camera that was pointed at the same scene. In other words, you only remember seeing what you were looking at, even though other things were present and visible at the time.

People aren't cameras, and this is a very common perceptual phenomenon, even in non stressful situations. It is one of the things that makes the accounts of witnesses to the same event so often different, even though they were present at the same scene when it happened.

n5wd wrote:Here's a side question that is only a little tangental to the OP's post.

Say, instead of stopping, the OP had managed to turn, and drive away, and the aggressive driver then started a chase...

Q: Would you prefer to have the bad guy stopped, and in front of you (like the OP did) or would you prefer him be mobile, chasing you?

I'm kinda torn on this - both options are bad, but I can see the chase winding up worse for all parties concerned, if I speed up (which would be natural, under the circumstances) to avoid the BG from getting in front of me and starting the whole confrontation again. (Yes, I would definitely had someone on the phone with 9-1-1 while this was going on and hopefully some officers would arrive in time to prevent real bad things from happening.

The engine and front end would make pretty good cover for the other occupants in the car IF the BG was armed (and so far, we don't know that he is)... but a high speed collision with another vehicle or worse, a fixed object, would definitely be potentially worse for everyone in the vehicle.

What would YOU prefer?

Great question, and that's exactly the kind of analysis and decision one has to make in a hurry when faced with these types of situations.

The answer is: it depends on the totality of the circumstances.

Wes wrote:It's definitely good that everything turned out well, kudos for not being confrontational yourself and just trying to stop the problem advancing.

My concern with saying I'm armed in a situation like this is it almost seems like you potentially help the BG. What if he too has a gun but doesn't have it out yet? This might make him get it or take it out. Almost like a warning shot that causes further escalation. Don't know, hope to never encounter it myself.

One might consider saying "I'm prepared to defend my family and myself if attacked."

It conveys the necessary information without the hot button of mentioning a firearm.

It's a clear, very reasonable warning that sounds good on a 911 tape, and the controlled ambiguity is disconcerting to those who are not too chemically impaired to recognize it.

03Lightningrocks wrote:I agree with how it was handled as well. The only thing I might add is that this post might be better put away until after you are sure the incident is closed. I would sure hate for some lawyer or DA to use this thread against you in some way.

If I am involved in a self defense situation, I won't be posting about it while I think there is still possible legal problems. I know first hand that even when justified, it can get very expensive defending your position.

I think that's a very low risk in this situation where a gun was not displayed, no shots were fired, there was no physical contact, and the investigating LEO told the complainant he had done the right thing, but it is something to consider before posting.

jbarn wrote:

RPBrown wrote:

jbarn wrote:I am going to be the contriarian. Your CHL class includes non violent dispute resolution for just these types of incidents. What would have done had he kept walking towards you?

Here is when deadly force is justified;

Texas Penal Code
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

In my opinion, pulling your gun was premature. I worry when our first response at an angry person is to grab our gun. We need other tools. If the only tool a carpenter carries is a hammer, eventually every problem begins to look like a nail.

I have to respectfully disagree here. We have made a choice to carry and our weapon of choice is a tool. These are exactly the types of situations that cause us to carry.
To the OP, I think you did the right thing, especially if you never revealed your weapon to him.
However, since this actually happened last night, there remains a chance that there could still be some ongoing legal investigation. With this chance in mind, I am not sure I would have posted this soon.

So your only tool for a person yelling is your gun? How about a person who pushes you? Shoot him? I ask these questions to provoke thought.

The OP came up with a plan that was a good solution in my book because it succeeded in deescalating the confrontation without violence, injury, or legal issues, it had a Plan B in case the problem escalated, and it was approved as a good one by the officer who investigated the incident.

Of course that solution isn't the only possible one, and there may be a better approach.

Kindly help provoke thought by providing the solution you would have used in that situation so we can consider and perhaps learn from it.

jbarn wrote:I am going to be the contriarian. Your CHL class includes non violent dispute resolution for just these types of incidents. What would have done had he kept walking towards you?

Here is when deadly force is justified;

Texas Penal Code
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

In my opinion, pulling your gun was premature. I worry when our first response at an angry person is to grab our gun. We need other tools. If the only tool a carpenter carries is a hammer, eventually every problem begins to look like a nail.

Please carry this line of thought further so our members can fully consider it:

1) What do you think the OP should have physically done differently (other than backing up, which has already been discussed)?

2) What should he have said to the other driver?

3) If the subject had ignored his words and continued to advance to his door, what should he have done?

My first comment is: Congratulations to KingpinGT for achieving a perfect outcome in a very difficult situation - no shots fired, everyone went home in one piece, and there are no legal entanglements in the aftermath.

You have acquired real insight into how suddenly these situations develop, how much ambiguity they contain (what was the intent of the other party - verbal venting or violent attack?), how little time you have to make high consequence decisions, and how much your body's response to danger affects you both during the incident and afterwards. Thanks to your decision to share your experience, our members also have an opportunity to learn from it.

In the spirit of after action review (not criticism), I agree that the ideal response to having your forward path blocked and seeing the other driver exit his vehicle and approach your car would have been to rapidly back up, execute a K turn, and quickly head out of the area. By the time the other driver got back into his car and turned around, you'd be long gone.

Telling one of the other occupants in the vehicle to call 911 as soon as you were blocked and the other driver exited would have been a very good move. It would have clearly established you as the good guy (the one who called first). It would have started the response cycle and you could have advised the other driver that police were already responding which may have influenced what he did next, and your commands would have been recorded which would have been important if the situation had continued to go south.

Staying in your vehicle was a good decision because it kept you partially sheltered from incoming fire if the other person decided to attack and also kept you in a position to defend your family if needed. Separation under these circumstances creates an opportunity that an experienced adversary can exploit.

Using your left foot to brace the driver's door open rather than putting it on the ground is a better choice. It keeps it out of a potential line of fire and further stabilizes the door in the event that you need to fire through the opening between the door and the windshield post.

If your vehicle was directly aligned with the other driver's line of approach, turning on your high beam headlights would considerably impair his ability to see you and the other occupants and interfere with his ability to shoot accurately if he decided to attack. Moving your car a bit to achieve this alignment is also an option. Impaired vision is disconcerting to an adversary and can help him make better decisions - like rethinking if what he's doing is really as good an idea as it seemed a few seconds ago.

All in all, you did very well in a very difficult circumstance and sharing your experience on the Forum has given many others a chance to think through options and develop plans that may save them from harm or grief in a similar situation in the future.

Thanks for giving us all the opportunity to learn from the event.