TexasCHLforum.com

40khammer wrote:While you are correct, I do know that there are plenty of people in prison for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon for pointing a firearm at somebody and threatening them.

Were those folks justified in using force? Or were they the aggressors? Was pointing a gun at the other person a reaction to provocation or a reasonable response, immediately necessary to repel an imminent attack or unlawful use of force?

I'm no lawyer, but I believe if you're justified in using physical force to stop someone else's actions then you're justified in pointing a gun at them to stop those same actions. Not saying it's always prudent, but as long as it's a reasonable response to the other person's unjustified and unlawful use of force, then I think you'll end up on the good side of the final outcome.

The problem comes when people react to a confrontation that on its own does not justify a use of force response - for instance, the guy standing on a public street calling you names, cursing like a drunken sailor, making your "nervous" but showing no other signs that an attack or unlawful use of force against you is imminent. And then you pull a gun and point it at him to "make him go away". This is NOT what we're saying and NOT what is justified under the law. At least not within the narrow confines of the information I gave above - other extenuating circumstances not revealed above could change the whole dynamic of the situation and the justified response to the situation.

Now take the same scenario above and the guy is on YOUR property, harassing you, refuses to leave, and maybe he's even damaging your property or trying to steal something etc. You have a right - like a bouncer in a bar or a security guard at a mall, bank, etc. - to physically escort him off your property if he has no legitimate legal right to be there (not saying I recommend this, just saying you have right to do so). In this scenario, if the offending person is a 25-year-old thug and you're a 75-year-old grandma, I personally would find it reasonable (though again, not necessarily prudent - better to call the police) for you to point a shotgun at him and tell him to "get the heck off my gosh-darn property, ya dumb whipper snapper!"

40khammer wrote:

MoJo wrote:Good reply A-R.

Remember the threat of deadly force is not the use of deadly force. Shouting something like, "Get away from my property or I'll shoot" or even "brandishing" your weapon is not use of deadly force. As you said, things could go into the toilet real fast if you do something like this.

MoJo

The threat of deadly force is only justified when the actual use of that level of force would be justified. If you can't shoot, then you can't threaten to shoot or brandish the weapon.

I think you're wrong on that. Unless you're carrying under authority of a CHL (which has it's own unique and, IMHO, problematic twist to it - see below), the threat of force by producing a weapon does not equal the use of force.

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.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

However, if the weapon you're using is carried under authority of a CHL, producing a weapon when deadly force is not justified could be an unlawful failure to conceal.

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.

emphasis added

In a nutshell, if you're on your own property (and thus not carrying under authority of a CHL because you don't need a CHL to carry a gun on your own property) you can produce a weapon as a threat of deadly force when use of force is justified. If you're in public and thus carrying your weapon under authority of your CHL, intentionally unconcealing our weapon when only the use of force (and not deadly force) is justified could be unlawful.

good points, kythas. must always remember that - unlike justifications for use of deadly force to protect persons - the justifications to use deadly force to protect property ARE solely determined by the type of crime being committed.

Dont' forget also that many cases that may start off as "protection of property" can quickly end up as "protection of persons" after the initial contact/confrontation. The Joe Horn case is the perfect/imperfect example. If Horn had simply shot the two men burglarizing his neighbors home, my personal opinion is he would have lacked legal justification. But his defense - slim as it was - hung on the premise that upon confronting the two men, one of them approached him with a weapon (tire iron or something) and entered Horn's property. That is the point he shot - when his life was in danger. Of course, despite being cleared of criminal wrongdoing, Horn's life was irrevocably turned upside down because of his actions - so I'm not recommending anyone do the same.

Whether to confront someone who is stealing your property is a personal decision. Yelling at the person to stop/leave etc is not use of deadly force. Displaying a weapon while doing so? Grayer area. I wouldn't recommend anyone walk outside their house and just shoot someone attempting to steal their car, but the statutes don't necessarily say you can't do just that. Up to a jury to decide. Question is whether the property being stolen is worth the hassle of a judge/jury/lawyers/legal bills etc. I doubt a pure "defense of property" justification with no extenuating circumstances or threat to life will be accepted by LEO and/or prosecutors without at least a grand jury weighing in.

So the real question is do you want to confront someone stealing your property, or just let it go? Again, personal decision. One way to think of it is this - would you confront the criminal if you were NOT armed? If not, then perhaps you shouldn't be confronting them at all.