Maybe jumping in too early (I haven't read through the entire thread yet, so apologies if it has already been mentioned).G192627 wrote:quantum wrote:Regarding the lady who tried to disrupt the shooter with her purse. I've read a lot of comments on other gun boards (and a few here) that it would have been better had she had a gun and used it. While I don't disagree with that sentiment, I'm curious from a legal perspective (assuming this had happened in TX) if she would have been justified in shooting the man at that point? He was waving a gun around and I can't recall if he had threatened to shoot anyone yet. Even if he had verbally threatened, is that enough? Would her justification have been preventing attempted murder?
Obviously, once he fired a shot, it's game time and you do what the security guard did. But at any point earlier, would a preemptive use of deadly force by a CHL holder put him/her in legal jeopardy for this situation?
In Texas law, "Threat of force is force," including non- and deadly force, with an appropriate response. Roughly speaking, once someone threateningly (my term; the context of the incident always makes me concerned) exhibits a firearm or other threat, then "it's game time."