TexasCHLforum.com

JP171 wrote: as I read the blue part that does say you said he used deadly force( the law also states threatening deadly force is using deadly force), but I'll agree to disagree and not post more on the subject

Yep. . . not trying to feud at all. If I implied something inaccurate, I'll encourage OP to read your exposition as I agree with it as well.

JP171 wrote:

fickman wrote:

JP171 wrote:

fickman wrote:Are there any witnesses? If so, they should corroborate his story. I'd expect something that extreme would've earned more than a couple of 911 calls.

If not, on a road as big as I-35, your brother would have certainly had room to go around the truck while it was stopped or in reverse.

I'm guessing he played a role in the provocation. I have been in some completely one-sided incidents, but they are extremely rare, and proving you remained clam and had no role in the matter is hard because most people - at some point in their life - have acted like a fool on the road. If he didn't, and he was truly trapped somehow and couldn't move his car for some reason, the I hope he wins his case.

To show your firearm is to threaten the use of deadly force. If you do it, it better be justified, and you better call the police the first second you're able to do so.

this is incorrect, read up on it

I have.

I didn't mean that every intentional failing to conceal is equivalent to threatening deadly force. In mid-conflict, drawing your firearm, displaying it as a retort to a provocation, or aiming it. . . any of these can be interpreted as, or actually do, meet the criteria of threatening the use of deadly force.

PC §9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

this is the law, it is significantly different in its form than your interpretation, basically it states that if you show/pull/aim your weapon you have NOT used deadly force. you are stating in a round about way that production of weapon falls under the deadly force statute and this clearly states that is incorrect. I do agree that the local Law enforcement agency needs to notified, however the actor did NOT use deadly force at any time, he only used the weapon to create the belief that he would if it was necessary and there fore used force but not deadly force, the law does not state anything about the threat of deadly force per se but only a threat to cause, so on and so forth.

I don't disagree with your statements and I never said anything contrary to them. I'm very familiar with the law you quoted and have no different interpretation of it.

USING force, USING deadly force, and THREATENING force are all different things. The OP's brother threatened the use of force. I never accused him of using deadly force.

JP171 wrote:

fickman wrote:Are there any witnesses? If so, they should corroborate his story. I'd expect something that extreme would've earned more than a couple of 911 calls.

If not, on a road as big as I-35, your brother would have certainly had room to go around the truck while it was stopped or in reverse.

I'm guessing he played a role in the provocation. I have been in some completely one-sided incidents, but they are extremely rare, and proving you remained clam and had no role in the matter is hard because most people - at some point in their life - have acted like a fool on the road. If he didn't, and he was truly trapped somehow and couldn't move his car for some reason, the I hope he wins his case.

To show your firearm is to threaten the use of deadly force. If you do it, it better be justified, and you better call the police the first second you're able to do so.

this is incorrect, read up on it

I have.

I didn't mean that every intentional failing to conceal is equivalent to threatening deadly force. In mid-conflict, drawing your firearm, displaying it as a retort to a provocation, or aiming it. . . any of these can be interpreted as, or actually do, meet the criteria of threatening the use of deadly force.

Are there any witnesses? If so, they should corroborate his story. I'd expect something that extreme would've earned more than a couple of 911 calls.

If not, on a road as big as I-35, your brother would have certainly had room to go around the truck while it was stopped or in reverse.

I'm guessing he played a role in the provocation. I have been in some completely one-sided incidents, but they are extremely rare, and proving you remained clam and had no role in the matter is hard because most people - at some point in their life - have acted like a fool on the road. If he didn't, and he was truly trapped somehow and couldn't move his car for some reason, the I hope he wins his case.

To show your firearm is to threaten the use of deadly force. If you do it, it better be justified, and you better call the police the first second you're able to do so.