TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:Beiruty ,

Sorry, after reading and re-reading, I still don't fully understand your post.

Would you please clarify?

If a CHLer decided to engage and stop a crime, say a robbery in progress at your favorite eater, the CHLer is justified in using a deadly force. Since it is justified, the legality of the actions of the CHLer is not the point.
The issue at the hand, should the CHLer engage or be a good witness?
To engage or not engage is a decision the CHLer has to take and this depends on many factors such as:
A) The shooter and his shooting capabilities. Is he a good shooter? is he in good physical condition to seek cover engage one or more threats? An old person or a novice shooter may decide, I can't do it. I will be good witness or I am bailing out.
B) How many threats? Again, many would say, I cannot take out 3 threats in 5 secs. Howver, if you watch a IDPA match, a shooter can place at least 2 holes in 3 targets in less that 5 sec.
C) Does the CHLer has the opportunity to draw and not being killed while doing so? A gun pointed at your head means it is too late to reach for your gun.
D) Are there good guys in the the line of fire? Most would say I am not sharp shooter and I am not drawing on some one who is taking a hostage. Understandable.

Also, many would say I am bailing out. I have nothing to do with this, here I am out of the emergency exit.

It is clear that CHL does not oblige CHLer to intervene to stop a crime. But, wait sec, isn't the purpose of the CHL is to allow to use deadly force when you are a victim of a crime (when justified)?
To be more specific:
1) A crime is in the process and a CHLer is:
A) a victim of said crime, then CHLer may use a deadly force to stop said crime.
A1) not acting by the CHLer is stupid and defeat the purpose of the CHL.
A2) acting by the CHLer is justified and everyone on the forum will hi-five for that.
B) not a victim of said crime, but a witness, deadly force is justified and it is up to CHLer to use deadly force in protection of third parties.
B1) not acting by the CHLer is not a crime.
B2) acting by the CHLer is justified.

Choosing B2 is of moral duty and only if the opportunity presented itself. I would say a matter of character. I do not expect some 80 yrs old CHLer to select B2, but most likely and young 30 some active IDPA/IPSA is inclined to do so if the opportunity presented itself. It is a matter of life.