TexasCHLforum.com

I find it amusing that the OP has come full circle to now blaming "senior members" of the forum for starting this thread's (and the other thread's) quick down-the-drain spiral. I've been in other forums and this is by far the most civilized and respectful forum I've ever been a member of. In fact, other than folks who have now proven themselves to be trolls or been banned, this is the most uncivilized I've seen this forum get. And it's still like watching etiquette school compared to other forums I've been part of in the past. Even if our responses came off as bitter or superior or whatever, even then we were still trying to pass along our knowledge and experience. And of course the 9-year-old daughter rule (best web forum rule I've ever seen, by the way) kept the truly vulgar name-calling out of this thread as it should.

That said, I for one truly was trying to answer the OP's questions and explain the perspective that I think most of us share that the two scenarios described in his OP were both likely violations of the law, or at least close enough to cause him much trouble. But his responses questioning our reasonable and experienced opinions were bitter and argumenative at best. Downright rude and disrespectful at worst. Because this forum is often so civilized, I think some of the more experienced among us (myself included) were caught a bit off guard and may not have exhibited perfect de-escalation protocol. I can't remember the last time I typed in all caps . So for that I'll go ahead and apologize for getting out of hand a bit. It's frustrating witnessing someone new to a group behave the way the OP has behaved. Even if I thought as the OP apparently does that I'm right and everyone else is wrong, sooner or later I'd just agree to disagree, move on, or just accept the groupthink long enough to end the discussion without having to actually drink the Kool Aid.

But honestly, there just seems no point in continuing this thread as all we seem to now be talking about is "who started it" childish rubbish.

The OP - despite his statements to the contrary - seems desperate to find some way to convince the rest of us that we're wrong and his actions could somehow be justified. Each "side" has made its opinions perfectly clear multiple times. It's time to agree to disagree and move on.

I vote for locking the thread.

JayCee wrote:Wow well this got out of hand didn't it.

Look I got the answers I came for but I'm not going to sit here and have people pass judgement on me for doing what I did in a bad situation while unaware for the law or paint me in a bad light because they read others comments and jumped on the bandwagon of bashing me. It seems that most of seem to think that I just got cut off or flipped the bird, if so you need to go and re-read what I wrote. I assure you that this was much worse. My fiancee was terrified and for a good 45 seconds I was doing everything I could to dodge drunk drivers and another car intent on harming us. I'm GLAD that most of you have never been in my place, I'm GLAD the worst thing you've seen is a middle finger. Most of the time, that's as bad as it gets. I experience minor incidents weekly in my 400 mile per week drive but these were above and beyond what would be the 'new normal' for roadway behavior. End of story.

Based precisely on a reading of your original post, you were NOT justified in waving a gun or firing a gun in either case. This has nothing to do with a misunderstanding other than your obvious misunderstanding of the law. YOU WERE NOT JUSTIFIED! Get that through your head. If you want to know why you weren't justified, read all of the previous posts. Doesn't matter how scared you or girlfriend were, in the situations you described you were not justified in threatening or using deadly force with a firearm. Period. End of story.

JayCee wrote:Sure, I do enjoy debating issues but that doesn't mean I'm discounting the information or the sources. Aren't public forums for debating?

No, they're for discussing and learning. Debates happen from time to time. But most people figure it out when the overwhelming majority of those who reply to their OPs, many of whom work in law enforcement and deal with these issues on a daily basis, tell them they are wrong.

JayCee wrote:So let me propose this question: what would a cop do if someone did to them what was done to me? Why is the protocol different just because I'm a civilian? What if you were walking down the street and someone tried to run you over could you draw on them? Why or why not?

YOU'RE NOT A COP! So your whole question is ludicrous. But a cop would NOT shoot from his moving vehicle at another moving vehicle except in the most extreme circumstances and then only if there were no other cars or innocents around who could get hurt. Don't believe me, ask the police officers on this forum. Protocol is different because police have a duty to protect and serve, power to arrest etc. that YOU DON"T HAVE. This is why you CALL THE POLICE in extreme situations.

Here's what happens when a police officer is actually FIRED UPON while in his car (not just some other car swerving in his direction) .... the police officer CALLS THE POLICE - which is what you should've done in both cases " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; EDITED TO ADD WARNING OF A FEW CHOICE WORDS THE OFFICER MAKES WHEN BULLETS START FLYING - not appropriate words for a 9-year-old.

As for walking down the street and car comes toward you, totally different scenario than your OP. But my first reaction is GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!! Not shoot. If there is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide (did I just break copyright rule - Ithink that's a song lyric ) then you're likely justified in shooting, but there's a good chance you'll still be run over and killed. So my advice agani is GET OUT OF THE WAY!!

JayCee wrote:OK 'Subset' I guess you're another one on his high moral horse here. I've mentioned several timss that I don't have a CHL. That's why I'm getting the dumb questions out of the way here, before they get me black flagged from class ;)

why do you think you'll be "black flagged from class" for asking questions? Such questions are encouraged by most CHL instructors.

JayCee wrote:Look, bottom line, legal or not if I feel threatened and fear for my life and feel that I have no other recourse (despite that some of you seem to have flying cars or can teleport out of harms way) then I'm going to threaten force. I can only assume by the responses here that most of you have NEVER experienced anything like the incidents I described so it's arrogant to armchair quaterback me when you weren't there.

Man, you just keep digging your hole deeper don't you? Some of the people who have already responded to you in this thread are law enforcement officers (or retired LEOs). Some of the people who have responded to you are retired from the US military and have seen "use of force" up close and personal in a manner that would leave me huddled on the floor in a pile of my own urine. Others of us have been carrying legally in this state for 10 years or longer.

SHOW SOME RESPECT!

JayCee wrote:I read your post about the event that caused you to buy a gun, and I commend you for taking your self-defense responsibility seriously. But you REALLY need to listen to what some others are telling you or you are just asking to be arrested.

And for extra irony, here's some comments from the mopac shooting story Excal posted:

Do you know what the usual cop response is when a fleeing suspect repeatedly swerves at a cop's car? The cop almost always opens up on the fleeing subject's car's windows, most of the time the back window because the car has already gone by and is no longer an immanet threat. The reason, the the car was considered a deadly weapon and 'the officer was in fear for his life.'


I'm not down on the police by any means but I also don't believe in double standards. If some lunatic going sixty mph. intentionally and repeatedly swerves at someone in a four ton machine the victim should be allowed the same percieved fears as LE.
If it means I spend the afternoon in jail then so be it. I'd rather not be a hit n run fatality.

For the record, I don't advocate shooting at people in traffic, the debate here is whether or not you're allowed to threaten force to dissuade an attacker in the highway.

Regardless of those quotes (and I noticed you didn't site the sources - some of them may know less about Use of Force law in Texas than you do), Mr. Smith was still arrested and is under indictment (far as I know) for his ill-advised actions.

As for the difference between showing it and shooting it, as I already explained to you in another thread, it's not nearly as obvious at it at first seems to be and just showing it alone is enough for you to be charged with aggravated assault, disorderly conduct, etc.

JayCee wrote:Also FWIW the word should be defuse, not diffuse. You're removing the fuse fro ma bomb, not misting a plant.

You're absolutely correct here. I went back and realized I used the wrong word in one of my previous posts and changed it.

Of course,you started this thread with the incorrect word "diffuse" in your title .... just sayin'

jimlongley wrote:

JayCee wrote:1st off, I'm not a troll.

But you kind of act like one.

JayCee wrote:I would agree that there is no "shared basic for effective communication" but not for the same reasons that you think...

as far as CHAP 9, I'm starting to like this bit, it sounds as if it would apply:

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.

So by my interpretation let's say you have a worst case scenario on the highway and the other driver has made it clear he attempts to cause a collision, you've made every prudent attempt to evade and he still persists. It seems the law would agree that pulling a gun in an attempt to dissuade the attacker is justified and legal. I'm pretty sure that reasonalbe people would agree that pulling a gun for .500 of a second and defusing the whole situation is a safer alternative than swerving thru traffic and playing cat and mouse while trying to dial a phone. What if there was an accident as a result of evading?

Apart from the fact it involves cars, I don't see how this is any different than some random instigator on two feet trying to beat your head in and you draw your weapon and scream 'stop or I'll shoot'. Why are the protocols for defending yourself different because you're in a car?

Glad you started reading the statutes. Now go read all the other statutes in the CHL handbook PLUS quite a few more not mentioned in the book and you'll likely start to understand the many pitfalls of showing a gun to "diffuse" a road rage situation (still don't know where you get this idea that showing a gun is a good way to defuse a situation).

But I'll start you on the right path. To be justified in USING force or deadly force, you must:

PC 9.22 Necessity wrote:reasonably believe the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm

in other words, there must be "no other way" to avoid harm to yourself.

1. Your action must be REASONABLE
2. Your action must be IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY
3. You must be in danger of IMMINENT HARM

Even if #3 applies, it seems most here disagree with you that 1 and 2 necessarily apply

Also be sure to read offense under:

PC 42.01 Disorderly Conduct wrote:(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm; [“brandishing”]

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

This is just the tip of the iceberg of what you could be charged with if your actions don't meet ALL requirements under the justifications afforded in PC Chapter 9. You can also be charged with aggravated assault and all sorts of other felonies.

And lastly, though I personally disagree with this discrepancy in the law, currently under PC 46.035 Unlawful Carrying of Handgun by License Holder: (h) if you have a CHL you are ONLY justified in showing your gun if you are justified in using DEADLY FORCE .... a Texas CHL holder was prosecuted and convicted under this statute for waving a gun around in a road rage incident when he thought wrongly that he was justified

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27187&p=328261&hili ... tt#p310584" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

to the OP, some points to examine more closely and really think about:

- You've stated that calling 911 on your cell phone or even slowing, stopping, or exiting was difficult in these situations. How in the world do you think accurately shooting a gun in these situations would be easier or a better decision?

- For citizens (as distinguished from law enforcement, military etc.), using deadly force to stop an attempted use of deadly force is NOT REQUIRED by law, ethics, or even common sense in many cases. RETREAT, finding cover, safe harbor, calling for "backup" (the police) .... all of these are OPTIONS to be considered in any threatening scenario of any kind. Actually using deadly force CAN BE a first resort (example: guy out of nowhere runs toward you with a bladed or heavy blunt-force weapon in an open parking lot with no cover available), but 99.999% of the time the use of deadly force is a LAST RESORT.

- in both scenarios you cited, you have countless other OPTIONS you could choose that have now been explained to you from other members of this forum.

- you keep coming back to "but he was using his car as a deadly weapon" or whatever .... SO WHAT!?!?! If 10 people walk in to wherever you are right now and open fire with fully automatic AK-47s, are you going to immediately move to using deadly force to stop their deadly force by firing back at them with a handgun? Or are you going to seek cover, evade, look for an escape, call 911? In a fight between a person with a car and a person with a gun, I'll take the car EVERY TIME and twice if the person with the gun also has try to drive a car while firing the gun

- Most of the good people on this forum truly are trying to help you. And remember, we're all "on your side". We're like-minded people who believe in RKBA and self-defense. If WE (collectively speaking for the majority of the forum who've replied to this thread) have concerns about how you're responding to these hypothetical situations, how do you think a JURY will react if you actually pull a gun or God-forbid shoot it while driving a car on a crowded freeway? You're not going to have all of us sitting in judgment on you. If you're lucky, at best, your jury will be made of people who are on the fence or indifferent to RKBA/self-defense issues - worst case, you get a bunch of gun-hating nanny-staters who think anyone who would use a gun for any reason oughta be locked up.

- Remember this: If you wouldn't do it without a gun, don't do it WITH a gun. Carrying a gun has the unwanted effect of making some people think they're 10 feet tall and bulletproof. In each scenario, decide what you would do WITHOUT a gun and therein probably lies the correct answer. Only if the answer is "I or others would probably be seriously injured or killed" without me using my gun should your own use of a gun be considered.

Lastly, if you don't believe us, read what happened to a hot-tempered young man on a freeway in Austin recently when he pulled his gun to "defend himself" from a road rage incident ....

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/man ... 44356.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=36789&hilit=austin+road+rage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cobra Medic wrote:I don't think a weapon is usually the best choice for diffusing or defusing the situation, but a weapon is often the best choice for defending yourself when non-violent conflict resolution fails.

This is very well stated and important for everyone to remember when things go sideways.

There's a VERY IMPORTANT reason why "non-violent dispute" resolution is one of four major topics that must be covered in the CHL course. In many ways, it may be the most important - certainly is equally as important as understanding PC Chapter 9 Use of Force. But it can also look like Communication 101 or worse yet pyscho-babble to a lot of folks. It's hard to apply all the little acronymns and lists of dos and don't to actual real-life scenarios when your adrenaline is flowing.

But learning and incorporating techniques to defuse, de-escalate, avoid, or escape confrontation is a MUST for anyone who carries a gun. Equally as important as learning how to shoot accurately, learning the go/no go places lists, which signs = PC 30.06 or 51% etc