TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:Again, I think that it boils down to "what would you do" as a tactical decision, not just what is legal.

I agree (caveat being that what I, and I assume most of us, would choose to do has a lot to do with what is legal).

I resisted jumping into this, but I felt the intention/meaning of PC 9.04 (as I understand it, not being a lawyer and all) was being misrepresented.

speedsix wrote:

WildBill wrote:

speedsix wrote:...that's great...but why do you feel that you need to announce to those of us involved a lively discussion that this thread is "out of hand" in your opinion? if you're tired of it ...why not just move on? I just met you on another thread that had 11 pages and had many tangents also...no complaint when you posted there...THAT'S my point...live and let live...

At the time I posted, that was my opinion. Sometimes threads stagnant and do not move forward with new thoughts. If you have new thoughts or do not agree, please feel free to post additional comments.

...we have reached an impasse, I believe...maybe Charles who IS a lawyer, will find the time to settle it...I think we really need to know what's right...ain't no mosquitoes in this thread...it's been real lively...

part of the problem, IMHO, here is that we're all citing things and discussing these things as absolutes, which none of them are. It all depends on circumstances of a particular case. As Keith B said a page or two back, the threat of deadly force CAN BE the use of deadly force - all depends on circumstances. I'm not saying that a threat is ALWAYS just a threat no more than I'm saying a threat can NEVER be just a threat. It's a very grey area that will be decided by prosecutors, judges, juries etc. .... which is why I counsel to avoid pulling your gun in such as situation - it's not a clear cut, black-n-white justifiable use of your weapon.

speedsix wrote:...I am not a lawyer, too...but I believe that 9.04 says the same thing as 46.035 (h) says....and that's what we're arguing about...I believe that if the force justified in Chapter 9 is NOT deadly force...then 9.04 doesn't apply...maybe Charles will be willing to settle it...I really want to know...I think it's important to all of us in making that decision about what to do...

speedsix, again I'm not a lawyer and I agree with you that pulling your gun on a purse snatcher is a bad idea and likely a violation o 46.035(a) .... but I just can't seem to follow your logic on how 9.04 makes drawing a gun an unjustified use of deadly force? The text of 9.04 very plainly states "a threat to cause death .... by production of a weapon ... does not constitute the use of deadly force." The whole point of 9.04 is to say that a threat of deadly force is not the same as a use of deadly force as long as the threat is just a threat.

Sec. 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.

deleted repeat post

speedsix wrote:
...I understand that you think that because some level of force is justified in the chapter...that threat of deadly force is allowed by PC9.04...but that is not what it means...it would be very wrong to think that because you could twist someone's arm behind their back to hold them for the police because they stole a purse from a shopping cart (force) that you could then produce or hold a gun on them(threatening them with deadly force) for a crime for which you would NOT be justified in USING deadly force... when it said the threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter...it meant that, in this case, since you couldn't USE deadly force on a purse snatcher for simply stealing the purse from a shopping cart, neither could you THREATEN deadly force...if it were an armed robber or rapist...the chapter DOES JUSTIFY your USE of deadly force, and since deadly force is JUSTIFIED BY THIS CHAPTER....9.04 applies...but 9.04 ONLY applies in a situation where the use of deadly force is justified by Chapter 9... if you can't shoot 'em, you can't threaten to shoot 'em...you said "...if the conditions are met..." and they AREN'T met in this case at all...the crime does not support the use of, nor the threatening of, deadly force...

IANAL

speedsix, I'm not entirely sure I'm following you but it is my understanding that - generally speaking - PC 9.04 DOES define producing a weapon as a threat alone as merely a use of FORCE (not DEADLY FORCE). So if you would be justified in tackling the purse snatcher, then you would be justified in holding him at gun point but NOT shooting him (caveats of course that the force used must be reasonable, necessary, and not excessive). I believe your justification for use of FORCE (but not DEADLY FORCE) in this case comes from PC 9.43 AND PC 9.04

HOWEVER, I still say drawing your gun on a purse snatcher is a slippery slope for a CHLee because of PC 46.035, which makes it a crime to intentially fail to conceal your handgun, and gives a defense to prosecution for this crime only if you would be justified under chapter 9 in using DEADLY FORCE (not merely FORCE).

So - as Charles has pointed out on this forum before - PC 46.035 holds CHLees to a higher standard than someone using a gun on their private property or under auspices of the Motorist Protection Act. This is something the legislature really needs to address and correct, IMHO.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.

My other major concern with drawing down on a purse snatcher is that if you're doing so using justifications of 9.04 and 9.43, you're making an EMPTY THREAT that you cannot legally deliver (i.e. threatening to shoot, but you can't actually do so). If the guy just keeps on running, that's that. Nothing more you can do. And now you've just exposed your gun and possibly yourself to overzealous prosecution of some kind.

You've also escalated the situation from a misdemeanor theft, to potentially a deadly force situation (you pull a gun to stop the purse snatcher, he pulls a weapon to "defend himself" from you're "attack") .... again, the term slippery slope applies very well to this situation.

To be clear, I'm NOT advocating pulling a gun on a purse snatcher. Just saying that speedsix's interpretation of PC 9.04 may be wrong, even though hish advice not to pull your gun in this situation is right on.

Yall are focusing on details of theft vs. robbery and missing the more important point that the crime had ALREADY happened. There was no longer imminent danger to OP or the purse snatch victim and using deadly force to recover property on behalf of third person in this case is a very slippery slope.

Think of the situation like this: would you intervene if you were NOT carrying? Because unless the criminal commits additional crimes (I.e. you block the purse thief's exit and he escalates, pulling a knife on you) then you're most likely not justified to draw your weapon on him in this case.